National FOID?, gun law idea


PDA






ewlyon
January 13, 2013, 05:14 AM
Hey all I wanted to know what you think of an idea that I have been thinking about for a while.
I think that it is time for a national set of comprehensive gun laws to be adopted to replace most state gun laws as well as the relevant federal laws. I also think that the best way to make this happen in a way that would benefit everyone involved would be to introduce hurdles to ownership that the individual could have removed. I do not like the idea of restricting what can be owned, and believe that it is important to protect the rights of the person who owns 1 gun and the person who owns 100.
So what I am thinking about is a national FOID system. This would differ from the IL system in that people without FOIDs would still be able to purchase firearms, but may have to deal with waiting periods and certain other hurdles to ownership, so long as they are reasonable and do not allow room for bureaucratic ownership restriction.
Individuals with FOIDs would be able to purchase firearms without the hurdles, however the application process for the FOID would be on the order of a few months and acceptance would be based on all current criteria for legal gun ownership as well as having a record clean of substance abuse indicators such as DUIs and possibly a drug test. In addition they would have to notify their CLEO (notify only), and keep a record book of transfers. Basically it would be similar to getting a C&R but it would apply to all firearms. This would also possibly allow a change in the laws so that modern firearms could be shipped to the license holders home.


All of this is just an idea that I am working on but I am interested in getting a outline written for a set of laws that would simplify ownership for collectors and frequent buyers while not unreasonably complicating ownership for others.

Here are some of the other elements of this that I am considering,
Should all transfers to an unlicensed individual go through FFL?
Would it be possible to provide for individual purchase NICS checks so that a seller could call a number and verify the validity of the buyers license?
Waiting period length for unlicensed transfers?
How could we do mental health background checks for license applications efficiently and without violating medical privacy?
Should the license administration be handled by the states or by the federal govt?

I know, this is a lot of ideas and questions. I appreciate any thoughts on this, even if the thought is that this is a horrible idea, so please let me know what you think or how you would structure such a law if given the opportunity.

If you enjoyed reading about "National FOID?, gun law idea" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
gun addict
January 13, 2013, 05:20 AM
How about nooooo???!?!

Avenger29
January 13, 2013, 05:50 AM
Absolutely NOT.

Here's an alternative- NO laws governing firearms. Not a single one. What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" is not clear?

Texan Scott
January 13, 2013, 06:18 AM
Been through this, recently. The power to GRANT the RKBA is logically also the power to DENY IT. This is a power the Constitution specifically FORBIDS the federal government to exercise over the States - PERIOD. (Bill of Rights, amendment 2, Q.V.)

The answer is NO. A federal FOID law is unconstitutional and unacceptable.

okiewita40
January 13, 2013, 06:28 AM
Not a chance in blue blazes. Why would I or anyone else need a foid? Seems like some stupid thing a Liberal would come up with.

This is a stretch but hear me out. Nobody has to go to the fed's to get a drivers lic. So why do I need a lic. to buy/own a firearm? I know not everyone is like me. I am private citizen of the U.S. of A. I am also a veteran and an LEO.

Further more it is in the U.S. constitution and my state constitution to have the right to keep and bear arms. There is no reason for the federal govt. to need to know what kind or how many guns I own or how much ammo I have. As long as all of my firearms have been legally purchased.(which they have)

This would be nothing more a step to do away with my rights as an American. Next thing you know they will want to take away free speech or limit the size of an event. NO THANK YOU.

If you want to live in a country like that. Then all I can say is feel free to move to country with those kinds of laws. I don't need anymore people trying to change this great country for the worse.

joeschmoe
January 13, 2013, 06:32 AM
No.

ccsniper
January 13, 2013, 06:33 AM
Absolutely NOT.

sorry Avenger, saw your post and agreed with it so much had to steal it

DJW
January 13, 2013, 06:36 AM
They had one in Illinois and that is one reason I left there more than 20 yrs. ago. It was a pain and the list WAS distributed to state police after it was specifically stated that it would NEVER be!
None of my possessions has ever broken out of my safe and hurt anyone in the last 60 years that I have owned and used them. Keep your silly and potentially dangerous rules to yourself.

kwguy
January 13, 2013, 06:36 AM
Boy, people just loooove to swing at that "good idea pinata", and nothing but crap falls out of it. A national FOID? What would be the point? Just because? In no way would that have stopped what happened in CT. People have lost sight of the objective and have started down the rabbit holes of "good ideas" just for the sake of it. FOID? Why? Registration? Why? For what purpose? To find the owner of the weapon? We already KNOW who owned the weapons in these latest incidents. And if it's stolen, then there IS no lawful owner. There is no good purpose that can come of any of that. People need to stop swinging at that pinata.

The road to hell is paved in good intentions.

sonick808
January 13, 2013, 07:03 AM
solves nothing

Centurian22
January 13, 2013, 07:09 AM
I'll add another resounding "NO!"

OneLiveRound
January 13, 2013, 07:10 AM
I'm not in favor of that Idea...but since we're talking about new cards, how about a national CCW permit reciprocity act. It would function like a drivers lisence, issued in your state but valid throught the land.

kyletx1911
January 13, 2013, 07:11 AM
Nope nope and nope

Onmilo
January 13, 2013, 07:51 AM
We have FOID in Illinois. It does absolutely nothing but generate more money the state then wastes...

DoubleMag
January 13, 2013, 07:53 AM
Sir

I responded to individual sections within your post as a highlight here goes!!

National FOID?, gun law idea
Hey all I wanted to know what you think of an idea that I have been thinking about for a while.
I think that it is time for a national set of comprehensive gun laws to be adopted to replace most state gun laws as well as the relevant federal laws.
OK, Biden is wanting to replace existing Fed laws now...consensus amongst RKBA crowd is...not good!
I also think that the best way to make this happen in a way that would benefit everyone involved would be to introduce hurdles to ownership that the individual could have removed.
I'm not aware of these hurdles? I mean, a gun purchase at gunshop is background checked. Private sale is already regulated...the only hurdles I've encountered lately is strictly due to...Biden/Obama scaring the liver out of people (not me:))
I do not like the idea of restricting what can be owned, and believe that it is important to protect the rights of the person who owns 1 gun and the person who owns 100.
This is redundant to existing rules and regs then IMO.
So what I am thinking about is a national FOID system. This would differ from the IL system in that people without FOIDs would still be able to purchase firearms, but may have to deal with waiting periods and certain other hurdles to ownership, so long as they are reasonable and do not allow room for bureaucratic ownership restriction.
Sounds exactly like IL !
Individuals with FOIDs would be able to purchase firearms without the hurdles, however the application process for the FOID would be on the order of a few months and acceptance would be based on all current criteria for legal gun ownership as well as having a record clean of substance abuse indicators such as DUIs and possibly a drug test. In addition they would have to notify their CLEO (notify only), and keep a record book of transfers.
OK who's going too pay for the extra CLEO activity?? A new 'tax'? LEO departments are stretched to paper thin margins now!
Basically it would be similar to getting a C&R but it would apply to all firearms. This would also possibly allow a change in the laws so that modern firearms could be shipped to the license holders home.


All of this is just an idea that I am working on but I am interested in getting a outline written for a set of laws that would simplify ownership for collectors and frequent buyers while not unreasonably complicating ownership for others.

Here are some of the other elements of this that I am considering,
Should all transfers to an unlicensed individual go through FFL?
No, not necessary
Would it be possible to provide for individual purchase NICS checks so that a seller could call a number and verify the validity of the buyers license?
Now thats an idea. Do I have this idea right...application; I'm at a fleamarket and a individual has a gun for sale. Say a handgun. So I call this certain# which can say if he/she is clear via state drivers license ?
Waiting period length for unlicensed transfers?
No waiting periods have NEVER shown to be effective and are now null due to NICS check times
How could we do mental health background checks for license applications efficiently and without violating medical privacy?
Have no idea but...an idea who's time has come? Perhaps less doping of our kids and more parenting? Again...private sector solution
Should the license administration be handled by the states or by the federal govt?
I believe the states can handle anything and everything better then what the US Constitution specifically says the Fed can do.

I know, this is a lot of ideas and questions. I appreciate any thoughts on this, even if the thought is that this is a horrible idea, so please let me know what you think or how you would structure such a law if given the opportunity.

Overall I believe you are well intentioned on your national card idea. Some other well intentions usually go bad when the Fed gov't gets in. Even G Bush' idea of HomeLand Security (It's the Borders, Stupid!) was a 'good idea'...until the wrong sort fellow (uhumm) gets in. Further, anything and everything becomes encumbered when more people are involved. Ok you're up on a ladder for a home project, and need a hammer. So the kid starts back for it, but has to ask older sibling. Older sibling then has to get permission from Mom. Permission is given, now hammer has to be retrieved. Checked by Mom, handed back to older kid then given to younger kid to Dad on ladder. Would've been easier to just go get it!! Do you see?? Anytime you add bureaucratic layers to gov't its worse then that example there!!:eek:




Look this is real, real simple this is all about crime control not gun control, medical control...thought control or whatever. And no one's talking it. Lets try this...if you do a mass shooting you're a terrorist, stripped of citizenship via judiciary process, all lands and goods confiscated and given to the victims, and given life at hard labor in a military camp. Bingo...these types of mass shooting goes to virtual ZERO. Real punishment fits the crime...what a concept

Hacker15E
January 13, 2013, 07:58 AM
Lets try this...if you do a mass shooting you're a terrorist, stripped of citizenship via judiciary process, all lands and goods confiscated and given to the victims, and given life at hard labor in a military camp. Bingo...these types of mass shooting goes to virtual ZERO. Real punishment fits the crime...what a concept

Nope, also not any better of a guarantee than any other laws. These guys are suicidal when they do this -- threat of MORE laws isn't going to stop them, since they'll be dead.

DoubleMag
January 13, 2013, 07:59 AM
I'm not in favor of that Idea...but since we're talking about new cards, how about a national CCW permit reciprocity act. It would function like a drivers lisence, issued in your state but valid throught the land.
Or perhaps reciprocity on gun purchase using existing reciprocity of CHL? CHL usually means you're a 'good citizen'

Nope, also not any better of a guarantee than any other laws. These guys are suicidal when they do this -- threat of MORE laws isn't going to stop them, since they'll be dead.
Yes true...except also they want plublicity. Also many suicides are stopped by conscious position that the person will break the law. Should we therefore remove suicide as currently illegal seeing the prospective candidate is in fact, temporarily unstable?

Just a thought!! Life at hard labor....gets through the head of gangbangers

beatledog7
January 13, 2013, 08:54 AM
The Federal government is already far too involved in firearms law. It's involvement should be zero. What part of "shall not be infringed" did you miss?

stonecutter2
January 13, 2013, 09:02 AM
I know some folks (okay, most here) don't like these kind of ideas, and being from Illinois I have to agree that the FOID is kind of worthless and instead of helpful, it's intrusive.

What I would much rather see, if some sort of licensing were put in place, is that it was state-controlled. The state firearm license would involve basic firearm training - maintenance, safety. I know people who own guns that are ignorant about them...and with something that has such a deadly potential for disaster when mishandled, there should be some sort of training for the general public.

I am also under no delusion that anything will stop someone intent on killing themselves and as many people around them as they can. Maybe some sort of public safety announcements? We see drunk driving ads on TV, where some clown guzzles booze and gets in a car, why not anti shooting spree ads??

stonecutter2
January 13, 2013, 09:05 AM
The Federal government is already far too involved in firearms law. It's involvement should be zero. What part of "shall not be infringed" did you miss?
I'm not directly picking on you, as several others have quoted the "shall not be infringed" thing and asked what part was missed.

The Supreme Court has determined (and rightfully so, in my opinion) that the 2nd amendment does not grant blanket ability for an individual to own any weapon they like. There are in fact limitations to "shall not be infringed."

Gun Geezer
January 13, 2013, 09:42 AM
TRue. There are limitations that have ILLEGALLY be allowed to be put into place.

There are, however, no constitutional restrictions.

wow6599
January 13, 2013, 10:12 AM
This is why I worry about folks leaving Illinois in droves. A few want to bring their old laws, or ideology with them......don't. Keep all garbage created in Illinois, in Illinois.

Want to guess my answer to the OP's question?

we are not amused
January 13, 2013, 10:14 AM
A very bad idea!

Steve51
January 13, 2013, 10:21 AM
No way!

Isaac-1
January 13, 2013, 10:23 AM
Goes too far, I like the idea of NICS bypass, and maybe have multiple methods here, valid CCW permit holders can bypass NICS, maybe some other prescreening flag on state drivers license to bypass. There is simply no reason that a person needs to be reverified by NICS when they buy a gun every few months, every few years (drivers license renewal) is close enough as if any disqualifiers occur, then they were already a recent gun purchaser and therefore likely current gun owner.

Yo Mama
January 13, 2013, 10:24 AM
What part of your idea would stop criminal activity?

Sock Puppet
January 13, 2013, 10:27 AM
No.

mf-dif
January 13, 2013, 10:28 AM
It would be a cluster if done nationally. It's still a cluster in IL. Takes 3-mon to get because the State is back logged and costs $10. The form states they are to be fulfilled in a month I believe. I'm bet that doesn't even cover the cost of maintaining the program.

Federally if a $200 tax stamp takes 6-months...imagine how long it would take them to complete a $10 FOID card. I'm sure the cost would be increased.

Does it keep weapons and ammo out of criminal hands? Just look at Chicago gang violence.

Neo-Luddite
January 13, 2013, 10:38 AM
I've no doubt your best intentions, but please just say ~

NO!!! :cuss:

Sam1911
January 13, 2013, 10:43 AM
Hey all I wanted to know what you think of an idea that I have been thinking about for a while. :) I appreciate that you've put a lot of thought into this, but obviously you're in for a rough ride! :) There's not much in this that seems like a positive change.

I think that it is time for a national set of comprehensive gun laws to be adopted to replace most state gun laws as well as the relevant federal laws. We DO NOT WANT federal gun laws. That would be a miserable thing. What if the good Pennsylvanians, Arizonans, Floridans, Wyoming-ites (???), and others of states with minimal laws had to live like the poor, miserable, benighted Californians or Hawaiians or New Jerseyans? There has to be somewhere in this great country where you can go to get out from under draconian laws.

But further, you really need to understand the Constitution and how our federal and state government arrangement was set up. The 2nd Amendment said that the Federal government would NOT step in and place infringements on the right of the citizens to bear arms (but the STATES certainly could). The 14th Amendment and subsequent interpretation say that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the states in general, but that has to balance against the 9th Amendment which says that those powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the individual states, or to the citizens of those states. So NO, the feds should never be writing federal gun laws. (They have, and those pretty much all SUUUUUUUCK.)

I also think that the best way to make this happen in a way that would benefit everyone involved would be to introduce hurdles to ownership that the individual could have removed.INTRODUCE MORE HURDLES? Well, full stop right there. Argument is derailed, end of story.

Some of your arguments are interesting. It would be really nice to simply expand the C&R FFL to make it more of a general gun-collector's license that would cover all firearms, and perhaps open up Title II firearms as well.

There are already plenty of hurdles to buying a gun. Expanding the C&R idea would give you what you're looking for without introducing more CRAP hanging over the heads of the rest of society.

Should all transfers to an unlicensed individual go through FFL?No. Duh. :rolleyes:

Would it be possible to provide for individual purchase NICS checks so that a seller could call a number and verify the validity of the buyers license?Hmmm... probably pretty difficult, but maybe. A number folks could VOLUNTARILY call before making a private transfer? Not a terrible idea, though pretty irrelevant for most folks. A handful would use it. A slightly larger handful would even realize it existed. Remember many if not most gun transfers are just between pals and acquaintances who swap guns without even giving a thought to the legalities of it. That's not going to change, ever.

Waiting period length for unlicensed transfers?Uh, how do you set up a waiting period that is enforceable on folks who aren't going through licensed channels anyway? :D Think that one through for a minute. I mean, you could say "pretty please with a cherry on top?" but most will utterly flout such a law.

How could we do mental health background checks for license applications efficiently and without violating medical privacy?No idea. And I'm not certain the BAZILLIONS of false-positives wouldn't just make it a total morass anyway.

Should the license administration be handled by the states or by the federal govt?If it is a federal license (I assume we're talking about the new expanded C&R thing, right?) then it has to be federally administered.

NOW, to be fair, I'm not sure that the Constitution give the federal government the right to do this thing, but they seem to sort of anyway, so...?

blkbrd666
January 13, 2013, 10:49 AM
I've got an idea for gun control too. "Drop the existing restrictions and then leave everyone and everything alone".

Queen_of_Thunder
January 13, 2013, 10:54 AM
Oh HE double hockey stick NO.

JohnnyK
January 13, 2013, 11:03 AM
we already have a foid... its called a chl.

JohnM
January 13, 2013, 11:05 AM
It just amazes me that some of you who live under such onerous restrictions on your RKBA would think that those of us who live where the 2nd Amendment is respected would like to see such things applied to us.

egg250
January 13, 2013, 11:08 AM
ummm....no.

xfyrfiter
January 13, 2013, 11:18 AM
Dude, it looks to me like YOU, get a resounding and much deserved NO NO NO and your romper room privilidges are suspended for the time being.

freyasman
January 13, 2013, 11:27 AM
No, no, no, no, no....

2ifbyC
January 13, 2013, 11:35 AM
Curses! FOIDed again. (Red Baron circa WWI).

I admire your spirit in suggesting more restrictions or compromise as a way of thwarting further erosion of the 2A. Your thinking is a paradox. You are offering restrictions for what in return?

Do you really believe that Feinstein et al will reduce their demands once you hand them a gift of further restrictions. Your gesture will be seen as a sign of weakness; total confiscation is their goal.

Itís time we take a detour from the high road. They have been in the mud-slinging business a long time. Itís time we prepare to fight dirty.

Deanimator
January 13, 2013, 11:38 AM
I think that it is time for a national set of comprehensive gun laws to be adopted to replace most state gun laws as well as the relevant federal laws.
My response, as always:

"NO, I REFUSE."

Better think of something else.

Steve H
January 13, 2013, 11:45 AM
never

jbm
January 13, 2013, 12:02 PM
There is so much wrong with this, I don't even know where to begin.

1) The US Government can't just tell states to get rid of their laws, so any federal laws would be on top of state laws.
2) The idea that the Feds can just say "no in state sales" violates the US Constitution. (Would you want the federal government involved in the sale of your house, your car, your garage sale?) I remember a politician saying something like "we didn't go after private sales in the last ban because they didn't want it overturned on a constitutional basis". The Feds aren't so supposed to have anything to do with in-state commerce. Only inter-state commerce. I know they do, but that doesn't mean we should just roll over and let them do it.
3) You want us to wait a few months to get a card? What keeps the Feds from making it a few years (de facto gun ban). The idea that you're willing to let the Feds regulate your constitutional rights, doesn't mean that I am.
4) You want the ATF to get access to your medical and driving records? No thanks.
5) Once the Feds get a national set of gun laws, they'll "tweak" them until there is nothing left. Aside from the military (which they work real hard to try and screw up), what has the Federal Government done correctly? And you want the Feds involved with this?

I don't understand why people thing there is any way to deal with anti-gun politicians that want to take our guns away. There isn't. We gun owners need to get it through our heads -- appeasement doesn't work. Never has, never will.

Your last statement makes me think that you'll get something in return for this "compromise". You won't. We never do. The strides we have made in gun laws (e.g. concealed carry) took a long time and a lot of fighting.

With pro-gun people thinking like this, we don't need antis.

Brad

guitarguy314
January 13, 2013, 12:04 PM
The government should have absolutely positively zero say in how I choose to use my money as long as I'm not actively hurting or infringing on someone else.

End of Story.

Lateck
January 13, 2013, 12:21 PM
Another NO.
But thanks for asking comrade. I know any list a government has will never be used for the wrong reasons, (right comrades?).
But seriously, NO.

Lateck,

Ehtereon11B
January 13, 2013, 12:22 PM
National FOID and turn our entire weapon system into Illinois, worse than California, NY, and NJ combined? Are you a troll?

Lupinus
January 13, 2013, 12:49 PM
Not only no, but heck no.

What we want, what needs to happen, is a reduction in the restrictive, invasive, and largely ineffective federal gun laws. Name me one federal gun law that has in any way served to stop a crime or even at least inhibit it from being committed?

Such laws serve only to inhibit law abiding people from doing things. If one is a criminal, they get what they want. We, meanwhile, have to jump through hoops IF we can even legally obtain it at all.

So as to the idea presented, it does exactly the opposite. It's adding another very large layer of bureaucracy. Another layer of infringement. And not even having the decency of doing a darn thing to reduce crime or keep criminals from doing whatever they want.

Analogkid
January 13, 2013, 12:51 PM
Again, how would any of this stop criminal activity?

SigMic
January 13, 2013, 12:57 PM
I'm going to take the High Road by keeping my answer short....

NOOOOOOOOOO

22-rimfire
January 13, 2013, 12:58 PM
Sounds to me like you want to infringe on an honest person's right to keep and bear arms. National FOID cards... hell no!

People propose new rules and regulations in an attempt to be "reasonable". Well, the only people that most of these possible new regulations affect are lawful gun owners. Why would that be a good thing?

I don't hold to the concept of "if one life is saved..." There were over 1000 auto fatalities in my state in 2012. I don't hear anyone wanting to ban motor vehicles, place govenors on them, or restrict the gas tank size???

thunder173
January 13, 2013, 01:02 PM
Not only NO!,...But.......,...well you get the point. I hope.

beatledog7
January 13, 2013, 01:08 PM
The Supreme Court has determined (and rightfully so, in my opinion) that the 2nd amendment does not grant blanket ability for an individual to own any weapon they like. There are in fact limitations to "shall not be infringed."

Are you saying that SCOTUS can't be wrong and that its decisions can't be reversed? SCOTUS also once held that slavery was legal and abortion was not. I take it you're ok having the camel's nose under the tent?

KTXdm9
January 13, 2013, 01:08 PM
The Federal government is already far too involved in firearms law. It's involvement should be zero. What part of "shall not be infringed" did you miss?
Well said. How's the FOID card doing on preventing crime in Chicago? Yeah, not so much.

22-rimfire
January 13, 2013, 01:12 PM
I feel sure Joe Biden would agree with you.

blarby
January 13, 2013, 01:20 PM
How bout we create two nations instead :

One for everyone who wants more gun laws, and one that doesn't.

Oh wait, someone tried that once......... there was some other issue at hand........ lemme think..........

Oh, NM.

NAh, I'll pass on any "cards". My wallet has too many gubment cards that cost me money that I "have" to have, and not enough cash.

MachIVshooter
January 13, 2013, 01:44 PM
Also many suicides are stopped by conscious position that the person will break the law.

There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim.

browneu
January 13, 2013, 01:52 PM
I thought he was a troll but then realized he's serious.

My answer no.

Out of all the bad ideas suggesting a waiting period is the worst. What purpose will that serve? You're tellinge I have to wait to pick up my property after I prove my ability to own said property through a background check?

Again I say no.

Why don't we suggest policies that will address crime.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

JohnM
January 13, 2013, 01:54 PM
Quote:
Also many suicides are stopped by conscious position that the person will break the law.
There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim.

I must have missed that one! Yeah, I'd really like to see some proof of that.

Nicky Santoro
January 13, 2013, 02:43 PM
NO!
I live in the septic tank with zip codes known as New Jersey. We have that stupidity here. No reason to advocate spreading a cancer.

Buck Kramer
January 13, 2013, 02:43 PM
Why? What makes you think we need more of a bureaucracy than the crap show we already have.

SuperNaut
January 13, 2013, 02:52 PM
I'm sick of our "leaders" trying to impose federal solutions to what is at its essence a local problem. Bloomberg's Manhattan is a perfect example of one of our "leaders" in a position of power who thinks that his crime-ridden cesspool of a city is somehow a microcosm of the entire USA.

ewlyon
January 13, 2013, 03:40 PM
Whoa, 3 pages in 9 hours. Take it easy everybody, i understand that the consensus is NO.
But i want to address the point that this law would not solve crime. I did not think of this system with the intent to stop crime or even put a dent in it, because I think it is fundamentally ridiculous to think any gun law relating to transfer and ownership rules would decrease crime in a significant manner.
In addition, I believe many have misunderstood my proposal. This system would not require any license to own or purchase guns either privately or from a dealer. It would simply add some steps to the process to make sure people who purchase guns do so with the full weight of the responsibility of their decision, hopefully weeding out people who purchase a gun flippantly.
This is not a national application of the FOID law, this is the idea of a nationally recognized Firearms Card showing that the person holding it has been checked out and does not face the ownership hurdles.
But thank you for your replies and it is good to see such resounding consensus against waiting periods and federal control.

Fishslayer
January 13, 2013, 03:42 PM
How about a special ID to freely voice your opinions?

How about a special ID so you don't have to consent to warrantless searches?

I could go on.

MistWolf
January 13, 2013, 03:49 PM
National FOID?? Are you stupid???

How about a national ID card required before somebody can buy a computer and goes on the internet. They might post or obtain dangerous information. They might make disparaging remarks about POTUS. They might use it to obtain and distribute kiddie porn. They might play video games that promotes violence.

How about a national ID card before being allowed to join a religion? They might seek out a religion that promises you a place in heaven with virgins for making suicide attacks. It might be a religion that speaks out against abortions on demand, gay marriages and supports moral behavior. They might want to join a religion that disrupts the funerals of soldiers, marines, sailors and airman that died in the defense of our country.

How about requiring a national ID card before being allowed to exercise any of our liberties, rights and freedoms? History teaches us their abuse can lead to death, pain a destruction. How about an ID card proving a person's innocent intentions? We must stop all crimes before they are committed and until people prove they will not commit crimes, they must be kept under surveillance and presumed to be threat to security.

Is that what you want?

stonecutter2
January 13, 2013, 03:52 PM
Are you saying that SCOTUS can't be wrong and that its decisions can't be reversed? SCOTUS also once held that slavery was legal and abortion was not. I take it you're ok having the camel's nose under the tent?
No, I never said the SCOTUS can't be wrong. So calm down. I am however saying there ARE limitations to "shall not be infringed." You cannot buy a nuclear weapon or attack drone. And private citizens shouldnt be able to, in my opinion.

jimmyraythomason
January 13, 2013, 03:56 PM
Avenger29 answered the question in post #3. Nothing more needs be said.

Coop45
January 13, 2013, 04:30 PM
Maybe we could require Cowboy fans to wear items identifying themselves as hopelessly optimistic. No wait, that is already done voluntarily. No concessions on the 2nd amendment!!

easyg
January 13, 2013, 04:33 PM
....to make sure people who purchase guns do so with the full weight of the responsibility of their decision, hopefully weeding out people who purchase a gun flippantly.
So what if someone wants to buy a firearm for flippant reasons....it's nobody's business but theirs, and it's their Constitutional Right.

This "weight of the responsibility" talk is just a load of BS.
I'm not about to let some bureaucrat determine if I should or shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm based upon whether or not he thinks I'm being "flippant".


This is not a national application of the FOID law, this is the idea of a nationally recognized Firearms Card showing that the person holding it has been checked out and does not face the ownership hurdles.
The federal government should not be "checking out" any U.S. citizen unless the federal government has reason, and evidence, to suspect that citizen of committing a federal crime.

When it comes to firearms, there should be no ownership hurdles.

brboyer
January 13, 2013, 04:35 PM
Whoa, 3 pages in 9 hours. Take it easy everybody, i understand that the consensus is NO.
But i want to address the point that this law would not solve crime. I did not think of this system with the intent to stop crime or even put a dent in it, because I think it is fundamentally ridiculous to think any gun law relating to transfer and ownership rules would decrease crime in a significant manner.
In addition, I believe many have misunderstood my proposal. This system would not require any license to own or purchase guns either privately or from a dealer. It would simply add some steps to the process to make sure people who purchase guns do so with the full weight of the responsibility of their decision, hopefully weeding out people who purchase a gun flippantly.
This is not a national application of the FOID law, this is the idea of a nationally recognized Firearms Card showing that the person holding it has been checked out and does not face the ownership hurdles.
But thank you for your replies and it is good to see such resounding consensus against waiting periods and federal control.
Still NO!

easyg
January 13, 2013, 04:39 PM
You cannot buy a nuclear weapon or attack drone. And private citizens shouldnt be able to, in my opinion.
Why not?

I would trust my neighbor with a drone more than I trust the CIA with drones.
Our government has assassinated U.S. citizens with drones and with no trial, no legal council, and no jury of peers.

And our government has lost nuclear weapons before.

gdcpony
January 13, 2013, 05:15 PM
Why not?

I would trust my neighbor with a drone more than I trust the CIA with drones.
Our government has assassinated U.S. citizens with drones and with no trial, no legal council, and no jury of peers.

And our government has lost nuclear weapons before.
Proof of this?

highorder
January 13, 2013, 05:22 PM
Both the US losing nuclear weapons and the drone assassination of US citizens are both well documented.

I'm not in a spoon feeding mood, but google always is.

easyg
January 13, 2013, 05:34 PM
Proof of this?
Check out item 44.

http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/archive/nucweapons/50


And here's an article about the drones being used to kill U.S. citizens...

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/06/148000630/holder-gives-rationale-for-drone-strikes-on-citizens

joeschmoe
January 13, 2013, 05:41 PM
Are you saying that SCOTUS can't be wrong and that its decisions can't be reversed? SCOTUS also once held that slavery was legal and abortion was not. I take it you're ok having the camel's nose under the tent?
No rights are unlimited. Fundamental rights recieve the highest level of protection and the strictest tests to any laws that may infringe upon them.
The argument that all gun laws are unconstitutional is just as wrong as the other side claiming that all guns can be banned. Neither is true. There is lots of grey and room for reasonable people to disagree. As long as we still can keep and bear arms (not hunting or sport), there can be many laws/restrictions. Laws that make that impossible are clearly illegal. Everything inbetween is grey.

Fundamental Right
" Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel.
Definition from Noloís Plain-English Law Dictionary"

Strict scrutiny
"A legal standard to determine the constitutionality of a statute, used when the statute implicates a fundamental right or relates to a suspect classification under the equal protection clause (such as race). To determine if a statute passes the test, a court considers whether the government has a compelling interest in creating the law, whether the statute is "narrowly tailored" to meet the government's objectives, and whether there are less restrictive means of accomplishing the same thing. (See also: rational basis)

Definition provided by Noloís Plain-English Law Dictionary.

Gaffer
January 13, 2013, 05:45 PM
It is not a gun law issue. No matter what laws are conceived and passed. The fact is that our nation is now a very sick society. Nearly half are on the dole and more are joining every day. We have lost our moral compass and there is no limits or boundaries any longer. No wonder those with mental problems try to take out their anger the way they do. Every gun could be confiscated and very little would change as evil permeates our way of life. We rationalize away so much as its OK because everyone else does it, but that does not make it right.
Just look at who we elect time after time and what has been the outcome? We are so far in debt that no one has any idea what that amount of money is. Are you serious? We have seen the evil around us and just ignored it as someone else's problem. Well Harriet its all coming home to roost now and you are not going to like the future one bit. As PoGo said, "we have met the enemy and it is us!"

Ignition Override
January 13, 2013, 05:50 PM
No way. That would only give the antis the ability to randomly enforce the registrations/applications.
The government agencies which we have are severely over-bloated, already have the power to make random & arbitrary decisions over careers, and they often do so, in order to justify their existence.

Gun issues are ONLY about Government Control and its craving for more power/votes.
Our many gun laws do nothing to remove the vast quantities of guns in the hands of criminals at large, and will never prevent use by desperate animals who want only what other people earned, or to kidnap their children etc.

Notice (wherever it can be found) the flow chart used to try to decide whether a given semi-auto rifle can be sold in California.
It looks like a systems schematic of AC, DC electrical buses with battery back-up, but such gun feature charts are not very clear.
When in other states an SKS rifle was imported into the US with its bayonet, under some ATF rules the bayonet should not be removed, or added to a Different SKS?
This is sheer madness, and only a tiny example, among many. It Is Only About Control, and appeasing the mass publics' misunderstandings about crime and self-defense.

easyg
January 13, 2013, 06:02 PM
Every gun could be confiscated and very little would change as evil permeates our way of life.
I disagree.

I think that if all guns were confiscated things would get much much worse.
The predators among us would prey upon the weak in our society even more than they already do.

Bang!
January 13, 2013, 06:02 PM
More laws for law abiding citizens to follow? Law abiding citizens are not the problem. So..........................no.

beatledog7
January 13, 2013, 06:11 PM
You cannot buy a nuclear weapon or attack drone.

Can you cite that law?

stonecutter2
January 13, 2013, 06:40 PM
Can you cite that law?
Are you serious? What is this, law school?

Here's the part about possession of nuclear materials:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/39/831

Use your own google Fu for attack drone purchase/possession, and once again...please calm down.

WYOMan
January 13, 2013, 06:50 PM
First thing that I did after moving here was to DESTROY my Illinois FOID card. It made me feel free again. I WILL NOT be made to have ANYTHING like it EVER AGAIN.

Lupinus
January 13, 2013, 06:54 PM
First thing that I did after moving here was to DESTROY my Illinois FOID card. It made me feel free again. I WILL NOT be made to have ANYTHING like it EVER AGAIN.
Target practice?

WYOMan
January 13, 2013, 06:59 PM
Nope. I sat on the porch, and relished every second that I chopped it up into tiny little pieces.

gondorian
January 13, 2013, 07:10 PM
How about a background stamp on a DL or state ID that allows you to bypass NICS? Then require used sales to keep of record of DL number after a sale. Don't make a new system like Ill has which is a waste of money. Having a stamp of a background check would eliminate the need for FOID and that whole system, and would allow background checks for private sales and close the gun-show "loophole".

Lupinus
January 13, 2013, 07:19 PM
How about a background stamp on a DL or state ID that allows you to bypass NICS? Then require used sales to keep of record of DL number after a sale. Don't make a new system like Ill has which is a waste of money. Having a stamp of a background check would eliminate the need for FOID and that whole system, and would allow background checks for private sales and close the gun-show "loophole".
How about no?

Why agree to more infringement? Why give ground on the private side? Why should someone who sells their gun need to maintain a government approved record?

beatledog7
January 13, 2013, 07:25 PM
Here's the part about possession of nuclear materials:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/39/831

I'm gonna read all that? Not! A quick scan reveals a lot about stealing nuclear material and threatening with it, but prohibiting ownership? I'm innocent of violating any law until you prove I'm guilty.

Anyway, this is about principles, not picking nits. Rest assured, you talk compromise, you will get coercion. No, we must stand our ground, solidly and in lock step. Every gun owner that offers up a piece of some other gun owner's rights to protect his own is part of the problem.

WYOMan
January 13, 2013, 07:48 PM
I hate that when you get into a debate about firearms, and people bring up grenades, grenade launchers, artillery, rockets, and nukes.
A little piece of information for the un-informed........THOSE THINGS ARE NOT FIREARMS.....THEY ARE ORDINANCE!!!!!!!
The people have the right to keep and bear ARMS....NOT ORDINANCE!!!
:fire::cuss::banghead:

ThatGuyHank
January 13, 2013, 07:55 PM
I live in New Jersey and we have this FOID card nonsense. It literally does nothing more than what a background check at the gun store does. All it serves to do is to discourage those that aren't flag waving 2nd amendment advocates from buying guns. It's mainly just a big PITA.

easyg
January 13, 2013, 07:57 PM
How about a background stamp on a DL or state ID that allows you to bypass NICS?
There should be NO background check.
We have already given away the right to be presumed innocent, which was the cornerstone of the U.S. justice system.

Then require used sales to keep of record of DL number after a sale. Don't make a new system like Ill has which is a waste of money. Having a stamp of a background check would eliminate the need for FOID and that whole system, and would allow background checks for private sales and close the gun-show "loophole".
No.
I should be able to sell my private property to whom ever I desire.
And I shouldn't need government permission to do so.

Carl N. Brown
January 13, 2013, 08:21 PM
When a federal court ruled that the Illinois handgun carry laws violated the Second Amendment and Illinois would have to join other 49 states in allowing some form of lawful handgun carry for self-defense, the gun control crowd was quick to rally and cry that part of federalism is to allow the sovereign states to adopt laws, such as gun laws, adapted to their particular situation and traditions, and its part of the noble experiment of federalism to have no carry for self defense in Illinois, blah blah blah.

OK, it is part of the experiment of federalism that most of the states don't have a FOID (firearms owners identification) card and don't want it.

When I point out that the State of Tennessee constitution declares the citizens of this state have the right to keep and bear arms, the state reserves the power to regulate with a view to prevent crime, the right primarily protected is self-defense and volunteer military service, the tradition lawful uses of guns (hunting, defending livestock, collection as curios or keepsakes) are not unprotected by the emphasis on defense. Tennessee had a permit to purchase a handgun with (potential) fifteen day waiting period; that was rejected when an instant background check system was put in place. And anti-gunners have told me that they don't care about Tennessee, once they get a National Sullivan Act federal law trumps state constitutions and state laws.

Anti-gunners are antifederalist pro-states rights to defend tough state gun laws, but turn into strict federalists if they see a chance to pass a federal law stricter than state law.

If you have a gut reaction of hating demon rum, reefer madness, smut magazines, "assault weapons", video games, any other scapegoat du jour, the only compromise is in the direction of more restriction, and each compromise leads to another.

Warp
January 13, 2013, 08:22 PM
Hell no.

Alaska444
January 13, 2013, 08:26 PM
Sorry but a polite NO.

None of these gun control proposals do anything to improve security in gun free zones.

bhesler
January 13, 2013, 10:56 PM
My thought is that something quite the opposite would work. Adding a restriction notice to all state issued ID for those who are prohibited. It would take a few years to be fully effective as currently issued IDs are typically valid for 4-5 years. It would require the confiscation and reissue of ID when someone is convicted of a prohibiting offense. It would not be foolproof, as duplicate ID could exist.

It preserves private sales with no extra background check required.

ewlyon
January 13, 2013, 11:59 PM
Thank you gondorian and Bhesler. Some of the first posts to take this thread as intended. I really like the idea of marking the identification of those prohibited to own and of using current identification cards as the host.

poboy6
January 14, 2013, 12:02 AM
worst idea ever.

Sam1911
January 14, 2013, 12:02 AM
So you now have to show ID to purchase a gun from your neighbor? :scrutiny:

Putting a line in the coding on your DL that flags an FFL that you're prohibited is probably less of an intrusion than all the other suggestions, but what's the point? He's calling you in anyway!

bhesler
January 14, 2013, 12:23 AM
So you now have to show ID to purchase a gun from your neighbor? :scrutiny:

Putting a line in the coding on your DL that flags an FFL that you're prohibited is probably less of an intrusion than all the other suggestions, but what's the point? He's calling you in anyway!

While you and your neighbor might know each other well enough to be certain that they are not prohibited, many people cannot. In all other FTF transactions, you should be checking an ID to be sure that they are residents of the same state, correct?

As for an FFL, they can inform people that they would be/ or already have committed a felony by lying on the 4473. Or they can have a policy of ID'ing all people browsing/purchasing guns, to cut down straw purchases. Ranges can also check IDs to make sure prohibited people are not using their facilities.

breakingcontact
January 14, 2013, 12:25 AM
FOID card plus a bunch of other restrictions have stopped the crime in Chi..., never mind.

Lost Sheep
January 14, 2013, 12:36 AM
How about this idea?

Everyone who wants one can get a Firearms' Owner's ID card. No questions asked, no requirements, no hurdles, no qualifications. If you are a legal resident/citizen of the U.S., you are authorized (per the Second Amendment) to own firearms. Anything you like can be purchased upon presentation of the card to the seller. No waiting period, no background checks except for the verification of the card's authenticity.

Only those convicted of specified crimes or adjudicated prohibitions would lose their cards.

What do you think?

I have one problem with this proposal. It is a big one and if you don't know what it is, you will probably never.

Lost Sheep

Lost Sheep
January 14, 2013, 12:44 AM
So what if someone wants to buy a firearm for flippant reasons....it's nobody's business but theirs, and it's their Constitutional Right.

This "weight of the responsibility" talk is just a load of BS.
I'm not about to let some bureaucrat determine if I should or shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm based upon whether or not he thinks I'm being "flippant".



The federal government should not be "checking out" any U.S. citizen unless the federal government has reason, and evidence, to suspect that citizen of committing a federal crime.

When it comes to firearms, there should be no ownership hurdles.
Sorry, the Second Amendment does make reference to a militia. That kind of implies an exclusion to flippancy.

Now, I DO have a problem with anyone who would set themselves up at the arbiter of what is flippant and what is not. I think the founding Fathers would, too.

Lost Sheep

joeschmoe
January 14, 2013, 12:45 AM
So you now have to show ID to purchase a book from your neighbor? :scrutiny:


What could possibly be wrong with that?

danoam
January 14, 2013, 02:05 AM
No, not one inch.

gbw
January 14, 2013, 02:08 AM
So you now have to show ID to purchase a gun from your neighbor

Yep.

It's not a bad idea imo. We have a right to guns. But guns are dangerous and easily abused.

Society has rights too, among them some assurances that people chosing to own guns aren't insane, and are minimally competent.

Please don't bother with the ball bat, cars, knife, bomb, or other dirvel. Guns ARE different. That's why cops and soldiers use them.

I'd do it simpler.

A permanent license to own firearms issued by Feds after background check, and training taken and passed. NRA will be happy to do this. (The DL idea may work too.)

This makes gun ownership a considered decision, as it should be, requires basic competency, discourages impulse ownership which is rarely a good idea, and requires some show committment and responsibility.

For you 2A diehards, no court will consider this a material infringement.

License and photo ID required to buy, whether private or dealer.

Confirmation that license is valid and issued to the ID shown is required for any sale, by the seller, private or dealer.

No renewals needed. No releasing of data by Gov't. No record of who owns what gun needed, although I doubt we'd get the current FFL record keeping changed.

If someone holding a license is convicted of those crimes for which gun ownership is forbidden, the license is cancelled and guns are removed from the person.

Posession without a license a crime. Providing a gun to unlicensed a crime. Child-safe storage required.

It could and should replace a lot of the existing hodgepodge of gun laws.

It's not perfect and it won't stop all abuse. But it will help, tending to keep guns where they should be and away from where they should not.

Alaska444
January 14, 2013, 02:12 AM
It's not a bad idea imo. We have a right to guns. But guns are dangerous and easily abused.

Society has rights too, among them some assurances that people who chose to own guns aren't insane, and are minimally competent.

Please don't bother with the ball bat, cars, knife, bomb, or other dirvel. Guns ARE different. That's why cops and soldiers use them.

I'd do it simpler.

A permanent license to own firearms issued by Feds after background check, and training taken and passed. NRA will be happy to do this.

This makes gun ownership a considered decision, as it should be, requires basic competency, discourages impulse ownership which is rarely a good idea, and requires some show committment and responsibility.

For you 2A diehards, no court will consider this a material infringement.

License and photo ID required to buy, whether private or dealer.

Confirmation that license is valid and issued to the ID shown is required for any sale, by the seller, private or dealer.

No renewals needed. No releasing of data by Gov't. No record of who owns what gun needed, although I doubt we'd get the current FFL record keeping changed.

If someone holding a license is convicted of those crimes for which gun ownership is forbidden, the license is cancelled and guns are removed from the person.

Posession without a license a crime. Providing a gun to unlicensed a crime. Child-safe storage required.

It could and should replace a lot of the existing hodgepodge of gun laws.

It's not perfect and it won't stop all abuse. But it will help, tending to keep guns where they should be and away from where they should not.
Thank the Lord you can't fake an ID.

The last time I checked, you have to show a valid drivers license and do a NICS check on the spot. A FOID card is tantamount to registration which then leads to confiscation.

Avenger29
January 14, 2013, 02:13 AM
I hate that when you get into a debate about firearms, and people bring up grenades, grenade launchers, artillery, rockets, and nukes.
A little piece of information for the un-informed........THOSE THINGS ARE NOT FIREARMS.....THEY ARE ORDINANCE!!!!!!!
The people have the right to keep and bear ARMS....NOT ORDINANCE!!!


We can actually buy stuff like grenades, grenade launchers, and artillery.

They are NFA items. I can buy a current production LMT M203 for around what, $2K IIRC? and register it as a DD.

It's not a bad idea imo. We have a right to guns. But guns are dangerous and easily abused.

Society has rights too, among them some assurances that people chosing to own guns aren't insane, and are minimally competent.

Please don't bother with the ball bat, cars, knife, bomb, or other dirvel. Guns ARE different. That's why cops and soldiers use them.

I'd do it simpler.

A permanent license to own firearms issued by Feds after background check, and training taken and passed. NRA will be happy to do this.

This makes gun ownership a considered decision, as it should be, requires basic competency, discourages impulse ownership which is rarely a good idea, and requires some show committment and responsibility.

For you 2A diehards, no court will consider this a material infringement.

License and photo ID required to buy, whether private or dealer.

Confirmation that license is valid and issued to the ID shown is required for any sale, by the seller, private or dealer.

No renewals needed. No releasing of data by Gov't. No record of who owns what gun needed, although I doubt we'd get the current FFL record keeping changed.

If someone holding a license is convicted of those crimes for which gun ownership is forbidden, the license is cancelled and guns are removed from the person.

Posession without a license a crime. Providing a gun to unlicensed a crime. Child-safe storage required.

It could and should replace a lot of the existing hodgepodge of gun laws.

It's not perfect and it won't stop all abuse. But it will help, tending to keep guns where they should be and away from where they should not.

With "friends" like this and several other posters here lately, who needs enemies?

And yeah I'm a second amendment diehard. We don't need any government poking it's nasty fat fingers into the gun pie. All this "reasonable" gun control measures is just a bunch of bull<deleted>.

Damn surrender monkeys...rushing to sign away our rights before Biden and Co. even get the chance to do so. I think I'm starting to understand what it was like to live in France under the Germans, what with collaborators falling all over themselves to ingratiate themselves with the enemy.

easyg
January 14, 2013, 02:21 AM
Society has a rights too, among them some assurances that people who chose to own guns aren't insane, and are minimally competent.
You're wrong.
"Society" does not have any Right to any assurance that people who choose to own guns must be sane or minimally competent.

And just who gets to decide who is mentally sane and minimally competent?

Too many folks look to "the government" to make them safe.
Well guess what...a caged bird is safe....but he aint free!


There are already thousands of gun laws, and making more laws will accomplish nothing except to move us one step closer to total disarmament of the law abiding civilian population....which is exactly the goal of some folks in our government.

gbw
January 14, 2013, 02:23 AM
The last time I checked, you have to show a valid drivers license and do a NICS check on the spot. A FOID card is tantamount to registration which then leads to confiscation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not for private sales, at least not in many states.

Not wrong. Society has rights, and if they want any others, they can vote them no problem. It won't be perfect, but what is. That's a lame reason to reject everything.

If it gets to confiscation the fight is lost anyway. And I would not permit who-owns-what records.

easyg
January 14, 2013, 02:29 AM
A permanent license to own firearms issued by Feds...
Do you even know what the Second Amendment is really about?

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to make sure that the people of this nation would never be denied the tools to overthrown the federal government.
And the tools, the ARMS, our Founding Fathers were referring to are weapons of war.

Asking the federal government for permission to own those tools defeats the entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment!

gbw
January 14, 2013, 02:31 AM
And you've managed to misunderstand the whole issue.

Anyhow, had my say, I'm done.

Alaska444
January 14, 2013, 02:36 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not for private sales, at least not in many states.

Not wrong. Society has rights, and if they want any others, they can vote them no problem. It won't be perfect, but what is. That's a lame reason to reject everything.

If it gets to confiscation the fight is lost anyway. And I would not permit who-owns-what records.
That assumes that gun control will prevent gun violence when we know that didn't happen in England or in Australia. The root problem is not allowing people the right to self defense in gun free zones.

gbw
January 14, 2013, 02:43 AM
England murder rates are a fraction of ours. No one mentions about Australia - they have had no mass shootings since they did their repeater confiscation more than a decade ago, and they had them before.

I'm not trying for gun control, nor do I want it. I do want responsibility, and to impede impulse first time ownership and people who should not have guns from getting them. It won't be perfect, but it will help.

Really am done now.

Avenger29
January 14, 2013, 02:48 AM
people who should not have guns from getting them.

Dude I don't think you quite understand the issue. All your "solution" does is hassle law abiding gun owners.

If I wanted to commit a crime, I can go down to the street corner in the bad section of town and buy something from a thug no matter how many "checks" or "waiting periods" or what ever is done.

You DO want gun control because you are advocating for it in this thread.

gbw
January 14, 2013, 02:52 AM
Sorry, double.

easyg
January 14, 2013, 03:03 AM
And you've managed to misunderstand the whole issue.

Anyhow, had my say, I'm done.
No, I understand exactly what you're saying.

You think the citizens of this nation should be forced to beg the federal government for permission to own a firearm.

And I agree with the Constitutional Second Amendment that clearly states that our Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal government.

Warp
January 14, 2013, 03:13 AM
How about this idea?

Everyone who wants one can get a Firearms' Owner's ID card. No questions asked, no requirements, no hurdles, no qualifications. If you are a legal resident/citizen of the U.S., you are authorized (per the Second Amendment) to own firearms. Anything you like can be purchased upon presentation of the card to the seller. No waiting period, no background checks except for the verification of the card's authenticity.

Only those convicted of specified crimes or adjudicated prohibitions would lose their cards.

What do you think?

I have one problem with this proposal. It is a big one and if you don't know what it is, you will probably never.

Lost Sheep

Hell no

Alaska444
January 14, 2013, 03:24 AM
England murder rates are a fraction of ours. No one mentions about Australia - they have had no mass shootings since they did their repeater confiscation more than a decade ago, and they had them before.

I'm not trying for gun control, nor do I want it. I do want responsibility, and to impede impulse first time ownership and people who should not have guns from getting them. It won't be perfect, but it will help.

Really am done now.
Responsibility?

Yes, who is not against responsible gun ownership? Going back to the original intents of the 2A, the entire constitution was meant to govern responsible people and is wholly incapable of governing a people who will not govern themselves. John Adams so stated:

Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Adams

Nevertheless, despite the fact that many in our country are no longer responsible people, the majority still have the right to self defense. We also have a God given right to protect ourselves from tyrannical governments which is the main purpose of the 2A in the first place.

Will removing guns in America make it gun free? Sorry, not a chance with the drug cartels going across our open borders. Instead of semi-auto rifles, we will have full auto coming across the border. Will that be a better and safer nation? Sorry, taking guns away from law abiding citizens or these other provisions will not fix the underlying problems.

Texan Scott
January 14, 2013, 03:32 AM
People are still missing the point ... the federal government has no constitutional authority to legislate a federal FOID scheme. The whole POINT of the 2A was to prevent and prohibit the federal government from controlling citizens' access to firearms in the first place. Frankly, I believe even the NICS system falls outside the scope of Founders' Intent. If they knew that interstate commerce law was being used as a specious justification for federal gun control, I think they'd roll over in their graves.

No more 'reasonable compromise', no further capitulation. A federal FOID would be unconstitutional and I refuse to accept such a notion.

joeschmoe
January 14, 2013, 03:57 AM
This is what they meant = ARMS!. Cannon from the home of George Washington;

http://transplantedtatar.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/20120704-dss_5991.jpg?w=1200

Sam1911
January 14, 2013, 07:05 AM
While you and your neighbor might know each other well enough to be certain that they are not prohibited, many people cannot. In all other FTF transactions, you should be checking an ID to be sure that they are residents of the same state, correct?
No, that's not necessary. All you have to do is not know, or have reason to know, that the person is not a resident of your state or a prohibited person. You aren't required to check or verify anything.

And that's as it should be. At least until we get GCA '68 repealed and all this silly interstate business gets trash-canned.

evan price
January 14, 2013, 07:49 AM
I've got a better idea.
How about we repeal the 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the 1986 Hughes Amendment, the 1989 Bush import ban, the 1994 Brady Act, and then immediately disband the "BATFE" and re-integrate them with the DEA or FBI as just another investigative branch focusing on tobacco and alcohol tax crimes?

Hacker15E
January 14, 2013, 08:53 AM
I've got a better idea.
How about we repeal the 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the 1986 Hughes Amendment, the 1989 Bush import ban, the 1994 Brady Act, and then immediately disband the "BATFE" and re-integrate them with the DEA or FBI as just another investigative branch focusing on tobacco and alcohol tax crimes?

Best idea I've heard yet.

Once there, we can start talking about "compromise".

bhesler
January 14, 2013, 09:09 AM
No, that's not necessary. All you have to do is not know, or have reason to know, that the person is not a resident of your state or a prohibited person. You aren't required to check or verify anything.

And that's as it should be. At least until we get GCA '68 repealed and all this silly interstate business gets trash-canned.

So, you are OK with "Don't Ask Don't Tell" as a way to prevent prohibited folks from acquiring firearms through private sales?

I am with you on the silly interstate stuff.

blarby
January 14, 2013, 09:19 AM
I'm gonna read all that? Not! A quick scan reveals a lot about stealing nuclear material and threatening with it, but prohibiting ownership? I'm innocent of violating any law until you prove I'm guilty.

You would never see a court.

You'd be lucky to see the drone.

hso
January 14, 2013, 09:24 AM
Using FOID gives away that you're from Illinois. The idea that we should override the states in spite of the Constitution and that you've written a longish well constructed piece arguing that your solution should be applied to everyone across the entire nation implies your a student or young person.

You have to understand that the entire restrictive set of firearms laws in IL were based on the perceived need in Chicago for laws to control firearms ownership instead of addressing the root cause of crime in Chicago.

According to the FBI's UCR, Chicago's violent crime rate is far above cities like New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Houston, and even Detroit and while the violent crime rate in those cities has been falling Chicago's has been rising. Obviously when you have states and cities with liberal firearms ownership laws that put few restrictions on gunowners and IL and Chicago with far more conservative laws restricting (or even prohibiting) ownership you can't logically claim a correlation between restricting firearms ownership and reducing crime rates. If you can't correlate the data to firearms then your assumption that something needs to be done about firearms ownership is false and you have to start over to look for a new theory of why violent crime rates are high or low, rising or falling but you don't stubbornly cling to the idea that gun control laws mean anything in controlling crime. Look at the data, abandon the false assumption that firearms ownership laws have any relationship to violent crime, and leave the "Flat Earth" cult of gun control.

xfyrfiter
January 14, 2013, 09:25 AM
I've got a better idea.
How about we repeal the 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the 1986 Hughes Amendment, the 1989 Bush import ban, the 1994 Brady Act, and then immediately disband the "BATFE" and re-integrate them with the DEA or FBI as just another investigative branch focusing on tobacco and alcohol tax crimes?
absolutely best idea yet

breakingcontact
January 14, 2013, 09:27 AM
Illinois is impossibly broke. They could just raise the price on FOID cards to about $5000.

What? You still have all your rights. Stop complaining. Then next year it will be $6000. It would really help to keep all those troublesome lower classes in line.

To hell with a whole bunch of FOID cards!

Carl N. Brown
January 14, 2013, 09:44 AM
Tennessee state constitution 1870 protects the citizen's right to keep and bear arms and reserves the power of the Legislature to regulate with a view to prevent crime (court rulings hold that regulation cannot unduly restrict any of the traditional lawful uses of arms).

Now, if regulation with a view to prevent crime is OK, that regulation must impact crime, not impact lawful ownership or use.

Would a National FOID impact crime, and would the cost exceed the benefits? REMEMBER people CANADA abandoned the national long gun registry because it cost too much and did too little, and for the 2.7 billion they spendt over 17 years on that fiasco, they could have fielded an addition 2,000 policemen fully funded for each of those 17 years. With a practically guaranteed impact on law and order and crime reduction.

Would an FOID impact crime?

OK, how do criminals acquire guns?

James D. Wright and Peter Rossi, "Armed and Considered Dangerous", (Aldine 1986, 2nd ed 2008, ISBN-13: 978-0202362427), the NIJ Felon Survey 1,874 felons convicted of armed crime, 18 prisons, 10 states. The felons surveyed "obtain guns in hard-to-regulate ways from hard-to-regulate sources. . . Swaps, purchases, and trades among private parties (friends and family members) represent the dominant pattern of acquisition within the illicit firearms market." Criminals simply are less likely to go to legal sources, such as gun shops, sporting goods stores or pawnbrokers. Authors' summary at: http://www.rkba.org/research/wright/armed-criminal.summary.html

Of gun using felons,
50% expected to unlawfully purchase a gun through unregulated channels within a week of release from custody: friends (mostly fellow criminals), from "the street" (used guns from strangers), from fences or the blackmarket or drug dealers (who often run guns along with drugs);
25% expected to be able to borrow a gun from a fellow criminal,
about 12% expected to steal a gun for personal use.
7% cited licensed gun dealers and 6% cited pawnshops (usually through a surrogate buyer, a family member or lover).

40% of the felons surveyed reported stealing firearms mostly for resale.
Sources stolen from included:
37% stole from stores,
15% from police,
16% from truck shipments,
8% from manufacturers.
At most 21% from individuals.

My home town and home county were dry until 1968. I was 17 in 1965. I knew the locations of seven bootlegging joints. Some of the bootleggers ran guns as a sideline. So I have no faith in prohibition, and I view banning or restricting legal X as creating a black market in X. My gut feeling is a national FOID would have little benefit, high costs, and unintended consequences.

Yo Mama
January 14, 2013, 10:08 AM
Some of the first posts to take this thread as intended. I really like the idea of marking the identification of those prohibited to own and of using current identification cards as the host.

I'm guessing you are anti gun rights, and came onto the forum not to learn but to instead push your libral agenda. You didn't want to listen to the 4 pages of comments you received on your brilliant idea.

Now report back to the Obama commission. Go ahead hurry, you won't get this through without continued panic.

303tom
January 14, 2013, 10:30 AM
How about this...........NO.........

HOOfan_1
January 14, 2013, 10:47 AM
This is not a national application of the FOID law, this is the idea of a nationally recognized Firearms Card showing that the person holding it has been checked out and does not face the ownership hurdles.
But thank you for your replies and it

What if you had to have a National Right to Speak Card just to post on this forum.

You know, the government needs to check your background and make sure you aren't promoting any sort of inflammatory or illegal behavior. You wouldn't be able to use the internet or a telephone without a NRS Card...

Or maybe, unless you have a background check to make sure you are ok, the Police ought to be able to walk into your home and check around without a warrant. Maybe they ought to do it on a weekly basis.

stonecutter2
January 14, 2013, 10:55 AM
What if you had to have a National Right to Speak Card just to post on this forum.

You know, the government needs to check your background and make sure you aren't promoting any sort of inflammatory or illegal behavior. You wouldn't be able to use the internet or a telephone without a NRS Card...

Or maybe, unless you have a background check to make sure you are ok, the Police ought to be able to walk into your home and check around without a warrant. Maybe they ought to do it on a weekly basis.
When people open their mouths to speak their minds, people don't fall over dead as a result of them being irresponsible. There is a notable difference between free speech and owning a gun.

Having a means of proving someone should legally be able to purchase a gun would be nice...however I think that should remain as a background check by an FFL, not necessarily some card everyone has to carry around.

I have an Illinois FOID. It's never caused me an ounce of trouble. It did take awhile to get it after i sent my application in...which I certainly could feel like it infringed on my rights - and as long as it took, yeah it was not cool. But since receiving it, it's not been an issue. It's just a stupid card that is a revenue stream for the state.

HOOfan_1
January 14, 2013, 11:12 AM
When people open their mouths to speak their minds, people don't fall over dead as a result of them being irresponsible. There is a notable difference between free speech and owning a gun.



Yet, people speaking their minds have led to millions of deaths.

Irresponsibility can cause harm without firearms being involved.

It is pretty sad that so many people who are supposedly pro gun, are so willing to give in to madness and stupidity like gun registration and ID cards. Things which will not stop the violence, and things which are only a step away from outright bans.

It is pretty sad that people think it is ok to strip away rights as a preventative method, when the actual criminals are dealt with so haphazardly, and when there are so many other preventative measures which could be taken which would not strip away rights. All of it fueled by cowardice and ignorance.

Sam1911
January 14, 2013, 01:44 PM
So, you are OK with "Don't Ask Don't Tell" as a way to prevent prohibited folks from acquiring firearms through private sales?Yes. That's how it is and that's how it should be, until we managed to dump GCA '68 and the whole thing becomes a moot point anyway.

stonecutter2
January 14, 2013, 02:52 PM
Yet, people speaking their minds have led to millions of deaths.

Irresponsibility can cause harm without firearms being involved.

It is pretty sad that so many people who are supposedly pro gun, are so willing to give in to madness and stupidity like gun registration and ID cards. Things which will not stop the violence, and things which are only a step away from outright bans.

It is pretty sad that people think it is ok to strip away rights as a preventative method, when the actual criminals are dealt with so haphazardly, and when there are so many other preventative measures which could be taken which would not strip away rights. All of it fueled by cowardice and ignorance.

Where did I say that it was okay to have gun registration and ID cards? I called the Illinois FOID card stupid (at best it's a revenue stream, at its worst it's an infringement on my rights), and I said specifically I did NOT want some card everyone had to carry around. I am in fact in favor of all legal transfers to occur through dealers, with a background check (I know some aren't, but I am - if you can legally own a gun, you have nothing to fear from a background check except the fee to conduct the transfer).

Free speech may lead to millions of deaths, but it is still not the immediate threat of someone with a gun intent on harm. Free speech is not the same thing as the right to keep and bear arms, they are wholly separate rights each with their own issues.

stonecutter2
January 14, 2013, 02:58 PM
Illinois is impossibly broke. They could just raise the price on FOID cards to about $5000.

What? You still have all your rights. Stop complaining. Then next year it will be $6000. It would really help to keep all those troublesome lower classes in line.

To hell with a whole bunch of FOID cards!
Don't give them any ideas!

This does show just how slippery of a slope the ID card notion really is, though.

easyg
January 14, 2013, 03:36 PM
if you can legally own a gun, you have nothing to fear from a background check except the fee to conduct the transfer
Criminal background checks violate the presumption of innocence (which was once the cornerstone of the U.S. justice system.
And such checks violate the privacy of the citizen.
And such checks violate our Constitutional Right against unwarranted search and seizure.

Besides, there have been so many laws written over this nation's history that practically every citizen is a criminal (often unknowingly)....

Have you ever exceeded the speed limit?
Have you ever jay walked?
Have you ever cursed in public or spit on the sidewalk (illegal in many places)?
Have you ever parked illegally?
Have you ever taken some medicine prescribed to someone else, like you had a migraine headache and a buddy gave you one of his prescribed migraine tablets?
Have you ever taken mail from your neighbor's mailbox while they were on vacation?
Have you ever connected to a wifi spot without permission from the wifi provider?
Ever used an alias when registering on a website, like on this forum?
Ever post a pic that you didn't personally take or get permission to post from the owner of that pic?
Ever play cards, or golf, or shoot some billiards for some money (illegal in many places)?

The list goes on and on...
These days it's a very rare man who is not a criminal.

Avenger29
January 14, 2013, 03:43 PM
you have nothing to fear

Really now, the whole "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" line is quite overused in the justification of tyranny under the guise of "security"

HOOfan_1
January 14, 2013, 03:45 PM
Free speech is not the same thing as the right to keep and bear arms, they are wholly separate rights each with their own issues.

They are both rights...and both need to be protected.

Neither of them should be violated in order to protect against danger.

You can say they are nothing alike all you want, but we have seen too often people who are all too willing to make excuses for why one or the other should be violated.

Spats McGee
January 14, 2013, 05:10 PM
Hey all I wanted to know what you think of an idea that I have been thinking about for a while.
I think that it is time for a national set of comprehensive gun laws to be adopted to replace most state gun laws as well as the relevant federal laws. I also think that the best way to make this happen in a way that would benefit everyone involved would be to introduce hurdles to ownership that the individual could have removed. I do not like the idea of restricting what can be owned, and believe that it is important to protect the rights of the person who owns 1 gun and the person who owns 100.
So what I am thinking about is a national FOID system. This would differ from the IL system in that people without FOIDs would still be able to purchase firearms, but may have to deal with waiting periods and certain other hurdles to ownership, so long as they are reasonable and do not allow room for bureaucratic ownership restriction.
Individuals with FOIDs would be able to purchase firearms without the hurdles, however the application process for the FOID would be on the order of a few months and acceptance would be based on all current criteria for legal gun ownership as well as having a record clean of substance abuse indicators such as DUIs and possibly a drug test. In addition they would have to notify their CLEO (notify only), and keep a record book of transfers. Basically it would be similar to getting a C&R but it would apply to all firearms. This would also possibly allow a change in the laws so that modern firearms could be shipped to the license holders home.
The Oxford English Dictionary doesn't have enough expletives to express my feelings towards this one. I'm sure plenty of other posters have expressed the same reasons that I have for saying:

No.

Justin
January 14, 2013, 06:22 PM
perhaps instead of eating time playing a game of how to compromise or rights, would be better off contacting elected representatives to voice disapproval of any further endorsements on a basic civil liberty.

Heck, we haven't even heard what the action proposals are yet, and some of you are ready to give away the farm, sight unseen.

If you enjoyed reading about "National FOID?, gun law idea" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!