In support of a National FOID (Firearms Owner Identification Card)


PDA






Lost Sheep
January 17, 2013, 11:56 PM
Help me clear my mind on this proposal. If there are holes in it, please tell me where. On its surface it seems like a workable idea that preserves 2nd Amendment rights, privacy and helps (helps, mind you) keep firearms out of the hands of those who have legitimately lost those rights.

Part 1

The FOID confirms 2nd Amendment RIGHT, not a permit.

Everyone, upon reaching majority (emancipated minor, adulthood, etc) gets a Firearms Owner ID Card. Everyone not prohibited by prior adjudication. This includes non-citizens in this country legally (just as current law allows).

This is a "Shall Issue" rule. No local jurisdictions prevent issue of the card. (It is, after all, not a weapon itself, but a verification of one's right and DEFINITELY NOT A GRANTING OF A PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT.)

Part 2

Revocations, restorations, database access.

If some condition comes up (conviction of an appropriate crime for example) that changes your status, your FOID is revoked (by due process of law).

Note that revocations and restorations will be recorded in a database, naturally, and legal prohibitions on who (e.g. what government agencies) can search the database will apply.

Part 3

Background Check Obsolete

The current style of background check will be gone. If you go into a gun store and inquire about the purchase a gun, a call to the database verifies the status of your FOID. The serial number of the gun is not reported, the type, caliber nor any other details of the gun are reported and not even whether you change your mind before leaving the store and end up not buying the gun is NOT REPORTED.

Part 4

(edit: Thanks to Twiki357's post #8 for pointing out a weakness this edit attempts to correct: The Second Amendment IS every man's and woman's concealed and open carry permit.)


Universal Carry Right (previously called a "Permit")

The FOID card serves as an indication of 2nd Amendment Rights to acquire, keep and bear arms in any manner the bearer sees fit (open or concealed, anywhere not prohibited by specific law). Essentially, it is a concealed carry permit, good anywhere in the U.S.

Alternatively, local jurisdictions may see fit to require concealed carry or require open carry. This would be something for constitutional review if the MANNER of carry is part of the 2nd Amendment's provision of "bear arms". Personally, I believe it should be up to the individual.

Part 5

Fees? None for individuals. Probably none for dealers, too.

The law may (or may not) require private sellers to verify the FOID card status of the buyer (such verification would be free of charge to ALL PRIVATE SELLERS). Hopefully free even to FFL gun dealers, too.

The cost of maintaining the database will surely be more than offset by the savings gained by the absence of all the needless deaths and injuries prevented by 1) prohibited persons not having arms and 2) all other persons being ABLE to protect themselves.

Ancillary facts:

Privacy Issues

Your current address nor any other personal data not REQUIRED for operation of the datbase is not in the database.

Revocation/Restoration/Errors

An inappropriate revocation (database error for example) shall have an appeal process that is free and easily accessible without use of attorneys. The appeal process shall be balanced in favore of the appellate, putting the burden of proof on the administrators of the database.

Criminal attempts to purchase

Any application which uses a FOID previously lost, stolen or revoked (which has not been restored or reported as recovered) will be reported to BATFE (or successor law enforcement organization) for investigation and (if appropriate) prosecution.

Enforcing penalties on criminal attempts to purchase

Telling the difference between an (criminal) attempt to purchase and (a non-criminal inquiry) not would depend on evidence surrounding the alleged attempt - testimony of the seller, 4473 form, store videotape, etc.

(Personal note: I realize this puts FFL holders in a position of trust with respect to upholding the laws preventing prohibited persons from obtaining firearms. In fact, they already have that trust, as gun dealers are already the first line of defense against criminals obtaining guns. This just makes it more pointed. I feel this is a good thing, though I recognize that "drafting" such civilians into the ranks of law enforcement may rankle others.)

Non-gun-purchase inquiries of the database

Checking on the status for a non-purchase reason would be free of such criminal penalty (checking on one's own status for example).

Gun-Free Zones

Any establishment posted as a "No Firearms Allowed" shall have a system whereby persons bearing arms may secure them (this will include a clearing barrel). This may be a "coat-check" or "parking valet" service, lockers or any sufficiently secure system. Insurance protecting the value of checked weapons must cover loss of such weapons would be required. Capacity of such storage would be dictated much as parking spaces are dictated for stores now. Liability for the acts of armed criminals against disarmed patrons of such establishments shall accrue to the management making the "No Firearms" policy.

What do you think?

I am reminded of the adage from H. L. Mencken, "For every problem there is an answer that is clear, simple ... and wrong." Please help me figure out where this one is wrong.

Lost Sheep

If you enjoyed reading about "In support of a National FOID (Firearms Owner Identification Card)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
armoredman
January 18, 2013, 12:01 AM
If I need an ID card to exercise a right, it is no longer a right, but a privilege. This is something that will take us years to overcome, but we must - the government issues these IDs, then they can control the exercise of the right. This is where Constitutional Carry comes in to play.
I'm sorry, but I will not/cannot support such an idea. IL can keep the FOIDs until we get them overturned, too.

Ohio Gun Guy
January 18, 2013, 12:05 AM
Not a fan!

First it assumes the motives of the current Anti's actions are what they say, and not what they always have been..... the banning of all firearms. A system like the above would be ripe for abuse. My "FOID" I am a Human Being, Endowed by my creator with unalienable rights. I do not need a permission slip. I want nothing to do with a database regarding firearms, fire arm ownership, etc.

Jim K
January 18, 2013, 12:08 AM
I might support the idea IF it nullifies all other federal, state and local gun control and sales laws, and constitutes a national CCW license as well.

Not THAT ain't gonna happen!


"If I need an ID card to exercise a right, it is no longer a right, but a privilege." So I presume you don't register and vote, since a voter registration card is just what you say, an ID card to exercise a right.

Jim

Ehtereon11B
January 18, 2013, 12:13 AM
You live in Alaska which is one of three states with Constitutional Carry but support a national FOID system? Troll.

Educate yourself as to what you are advocating.
http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=20688

calaverasslim
January 18, 2013, 12:19 AM
Lost Sheep, You write and sound like an intelligent person, but your missing the point. Read some of the draconian FOID laws in some of the states or read about the may issue laws in other states. Then you'll see why your proposals are nothing more than a give in to the antis. They get one thing and try for more.

Lost Sheep
January 18, 2013, 02:17 AM
calaverasslim, thanks for your thoughts. I see what you (and the other respondents) are getting at. This idea was SUPPOSED to be a draconian move in SUPPORT of the right to keep and bear arms.

armoredman, did you not read the part about this being a "shall issue" card? The opposite of Illinois' attitude. The purpose behind this idea is to bolster the defenses against attacks on the 2nd amendment.

JimK and Ohio Gun Guy, you are correct; it would be extremely hard to do. But I think it would be hard for the left to argue against without sounding like idiots, even to themselves (if they would just listen to themselves).

Ehtereon11B, not a troll, at least not intended to be one. I really think you did not read the post. I know I do get a bit long-winded (sorry about that), but this is NOT the Illinois FOID. It just used the same four letters is all. Illinois requires you go beg for permission to breathe. This is shall issue, revocable only for cause, access restricted and penalties for governmental mis-use.

The existence of the database affirms the right just as the 2nd amendment affirms the right.

The idea of the database is to remove the whole waiting period, background check, asking permission of your local sheriff to buy and the other hurdles to our rights that are already (unconstitutionally) in the way. It puts the hurdles in the way of the anti-gun and protects the gun owner (and prospective gun owner).

Thanks for your thoughts, everyone.

Lost Sheep

Twiki357
January 18, 2013, 02:42 AM
It's a bad idea... VERY BAD. The Second Amendment confirms my Second Amendment Rights, not a piece of paper issued by a government bureaucrat.

Part 2. There's no such thing as limiting what agencies have access to a database, regardless of the law, as NObama has demonstrated multiple times with executive orders.

Part 3. In conjunction with the mandatory issue of the FOID and the database of valid or revoked, it sound's a lot like the equivalent of a nation ID card.

Part 4. I'm very sure that fartinstein would be the first to sing on to this one.

Part 5. I always liked fairy tales.

Gun-free Zones. I spit my coffee all over my key board. "Include a clearing barrel"... I hope you mean clearing the weapon. That should be good for an assortment of accidental discharges. Then I really choked with give my firearm to a freggin car hop?????

Your closing quote. Only one word matters: "WRONG!"

1911 guy
January 18, 2013, 03:33 AM
Others have stated reasons based on details. I agree, but will state the obvious. Having such as system is merey setting us up for misuse and unjustified denial or non-renewal of the proposed card. I, for one, have had my drivers license "accidentally" suspended. By a state I no longer lived in. Five years before I found out about it. So I am unimpressed with any suggestion that any sort of federal system by used to sort good duys from bad guys. Even the NICS system, as rudimentary as it is, fails often. There are many people right here on THR that have been initially denied and delayed for no stated cause.

armoredman
January 18, 2013, 03:41 AM
armoredman, did you not read the part about this being a "shall issue" card?
Yes I did, and it doesn't matter - it still gives a government entity control over a core fundamental right. Sorry, but that is my belief, and I stand by it.

Lost Sheep
January 18, 2013, 03:51 AM
It's a bad idea... VERY BAD. The Second Amendment confirms my Second Amendment Rights, not a piece of paper issued by a government bureaucrat.
The Second Amendment is also a piece of paper.
Part 2. There's no such thing as limiting what agencies have access to a database, regardless of the law, as NObama has demonstrated multiple times with executive orders.
Well, the law against creating a national firearms database has been holding up pretty well. It could use some strengthening, which I hoped my little idea might help provide.
Part 3. In conjunction with the mandatory issue of the FOID and the database of valid or revoked, it sound's a lot like the equivalent of a nation ID card.
Well, yes. And that sticks in my craw, but is preferable (I think) as I described, to having to beg local jurisdictions for permission to even go SHOPPING for a gun, as I have read is the law in some states.
Part 4. I'm very sure that fartinstein would be the first to sing on to this one.
I don't understand. I have edited post #1 to clarify that this idea confirms that the Second Amendment IS every man's and woman's concealed carry permit.
Part 5. I always liked fairy tales.
Yeah, me too. But I see any fee as a restraint of trade (illegal for businesses to do) which MUST be prevented. (It would be worse than the "you must buy Health Insurance" part of the recent Health Care Law.)
Gun-free Zones. I spit my coffee all over my key board. "Include a clearing barrel"... I hope you mean clearing the weapon. That should be good for an assortment of accidental discharges. Then I really choked with give my firearm to a freggin car hop?????
Sorry about your keyboard. I would not like turning my gun over to a coat check, either. But I had to do it with my Liberty Model Ruger Old Army when I lived in the barracks. I got it back with scratches. But a gun that is not a collector's item (that is, an every day carry piece) is a tool, not a treasured heirloom. And you still have the option to keep concealed (with the risk of being trespassed) or simply not doing business there (and pointing it out to the management/ownership). The idea of putting a burden on the gun-free business, I thought, would reduce the presence of those misguided establishments.



The clearing barrel is a practical consideration. And, frankly, I put the gun-check/locker, clearing barrel and indemnification for possible loss in the proposal as a discouragement for businesses to go "gun free".

Your closing quote. Only one word matters: "WRONG!"

I was thinking (perhaps wrongly, which is why I asked for feedback) that we need laws to prevent gun-grabbers from doing what they obviously want to do. I'm not convinced from what I have read so far that my idea does not do that. But I have become convinced that the visceral reaction to the letters F.O.I.D. makes it very difficult to get any kind of support within the gun community for (what I see as) the good parts. "Shall Issue" "Revocation only for cause", "Burden of proof on the Government, not on the appellate", enforcement of the prohibition against criminals trying to purchase (an egregious abdication of BATFE's responsibilities), etc.

Anyhow, thanks for your thoughts, again, everyone. Obviously this would be a hard sell even if it could do what I hoped it would.

Lost Sheep

Brass Fetcher
January 18, 2013, 03:52 AM
Can we get that card in 'implantable chip' format? Sounds reasonable to me.

Rights are all or nothing. FOID cards infringe on those rights.

Evergreen
January 18, 2013, 04:00 AM
Wasn't the whole firearm registration and identification system created by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party? I believe I remember a quote from Adolf Hitler goes like this:

1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead to the future!

You already carry an identification card.. The government has a way to check if you are a criminal who is not eligible to own guns. Why do you need an identification card for being a gun owner? That, in itself, proves it is not a Right but a Privilege, which goes against the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution.

Lost Sheep
January 18, 2013, 04:00 AM
Yes I did, and it doesn't matter - it still gives a government entity control over a core fundamental right. Sorry, but that is my belief, and I stand by it.
This proposal LIMITS government's control of that right.

The card does NOTHING of conferring rights. It provides evidence to a seller that you have not been adjudicated as having lost a right.

If you believe that convicted felons should not lost the right to keep and bear arms, that is another issue. That is already law. My post did not address that issue.

Obviously, my post was not clear. For that I apologize. It meant exactly the opposite of how you read it.

Lost Sheep

Lost Sheep
January 18, 2013, 04:04 AM
Wasn't the whole firearm registration and identification system created by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party? I believe I remember a quote from Adolf Hitler goes like this:



You already carry an identification card.. The government has a way to check if you are a criminal who is not eligible to own guns. Why do you need an identification card for being a gun owner? That, in itself, proves it is not a Right but a Privilege, which goes against the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution.
Evergreen, my post #1 specifically stated that NOTHING about the firearm would be in the database, the phone call or any record I wrote about. Also, whether a firearm was purchased or not purchased is not revealed to the database.

Lost Sheep

Evergreen
January 18, 2013, 04:05 AM
How will a seller of a gun be able to confirm that the person has a legal FOID card? If the person is so concerned about selling the criminal a firearm, he has the legal means and option to go through an FFL for a full background check of his buyer. Do you really think a criminal who is purchasing an illegal firearm cannot circumvent such a system? Fake identification is easy to produce, especially for a criminal looking to buy illegal firearms. This guarantees very little ,but inhibits the freedoms of law-abiding citizens, forcing them to be constrained to a form of identification which one day can be used against them.

BTW.. The whole weapons permit system is unconstitutional in itself. The only people who abide by conceal carry permits are law-abiding citizens. Criminals over 99% of the time will still conceal carry a weapon even if they don't have the permit/license to do so. All these are "feel good" measures that attack law-abiding citizens. In a perfect world, we would be spending time trying to abolish the draconian permit system rather than fighting for our rights to just own semi automatic firearms. Welcome to Amerikastan with its leader Mr. Hussein Obama.

Lost Sheep
January 18, 2013, 04:27 AM
Obviously there are a lot of hotbutton issues here, there have been many misunderstandings based on emotionally charged words and phrases that have clouded the issues and impeded communication.

I floated this idea in an effort to see if a way might be found to strengthen the protections we seek to build around our rights. (I remind everyone that freedom is not free, we have to work at it. Thus we may expect attacks on the Second Amendment, the First Amendment and others. It isn't right. It isn't fair. It is a truth that people who wish to remain or to become free must recognize.)

The NRA has long advocated enforcing current laws on the books rather than making new ones (like preventing violent felons from buying firearms and prosecuting those who attempt it). I sought to suggest a way that might happen.

Again, thank you all for your sincere inputs.

Lost Sheep

VVelox
January 18, 2013, 08:56 AM
This proposal LIMITS government's control of that right.

The card does NOTHING of conferring rights. It provides evidence to a seller that you have not been adjudicated as having lost a right.

If you believe that convicted felons should not lost the right to keep and bear arms, that is another issue. That is already law. My post did not address that issue.

Obviously, my post was not clear. For that I apologize. It meant exactly the opposite of how you read it.

Lost Sheep
So does a NIC check. Why should we use a card instead of NIC check when the card puts a notable increased burden on the individual.

Also I am assuming you are not from IL. The reason for this is I don't think you would be proposing it as it makes it problematic to take some one out shooting for the first time. The FOID does very notably help serve as a deterrent to learning firearm usage. The reason for this is it requires getting the person to get the FOID first, which can be problematic for those sitting on the fence.

USSR
January 18, 2013, 10:08 AM
Oh, great idea, a government database of firearms owners!:rolleyes:

Don

dragon813gt
January 18, 2013, 10:21 AM
Simply put, absolutely not.


Brought to you by TapaTalk

bubba in ca
January 18, 2013, 10:21 AM
What`s easier for Prince Barack? Find 200, 000,000 guns spread out over who-knows -where or find 40,000,000 dummies who are on a federal computer list?

tyeo098
January 18, 2013, 10:56 AM
There is a simpler way to put it.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Short and sweet. And its already law!

Elessar
January 18, 2013, 12:55 PM
We do have to register to vote, which I suppose is the closest comparison. That system I presume is intended to make sure that only eligible citizens can vote.

This would be the same intent with a national firearms card but I don't see the point really. We already have the NICS check. Combined with CCW permits, in most free states this is pretty much an instant phone call type check already. The National Firearms Card would be misused as a form of ID, tracking, registering, taxing, you name it. No way this could happen as a way to increase and simplify firearms ownership. Politically it wouldn't go over that way.

Art Eatman
January 18, 2013, 01:10 PM
Allegedly, the reason for any controls on firearms is to reduce or prevent violent crimes where firearms are used.

So what violent crimes would be prevented by an FOID? What crime rate would actually be reduced by an FOID, other than paperwork crimes?

One step further: What violent crimes have ever been prevented by ANY gun control law? What law ever passed has reduced the rate of violent crimes involving firearms? (I've asked these questions for over 45 years, now, and I've yet to get a credible answer.)

armoredman
January 18, 2013, 01:38 PM
I don't think you understand, sir.
It provides evidence to a seller that you have not been adjudicated as having lost a right.
It does nothing of the kind - it is a government issued permission slip. If the government wants, they can revoke it for any reason they decide is worthwhile, which could be a long list - what if you are placed on the illegal and supersecret "no fly" list, which apparently when once on, can never be removed from? Remember several government agents/politicians have openly stated nobody on the "no fly" or "watch" list should ever be allowed to buy guns, even thought the list has proven to be very inaccurate.
No, Ill stick with what works, AZ's method, with which crime has been steadily decreasing.

WGSNewnan
January 18, 2013, 01:48 PM
whats next - a Free Speech card? how about a freedom of religion card? i dont believe God needs approval since my rights are, and shall remain, GOD GIVEN RIGHTS!

Ehtereon11B
January 18, 2013, 04:05 PM
I did in fact read your post. The only states your FOID system would benefit are states that do not have shall issue or easy may issue permit systems such as NY, NJ etc. Would it be easier to have a national standard for CCW? Yes. That is why the concealed carry reciprocity bill was introduced yet stalled in the Senate last I checked. In states where concealed carry is a 20 minute process, it is a hindrance and a way to grant privilege to a right.

OpelBlitz
January 18, 2013, 08:37 PM
Screw that noise. I'm tired of having one in Illinois; no one else needs to suffer under this crap. Whoever said that it then becomes a privilege instead of a right is spot on.

Thermactor
January 18, 2013, 09:00 PM
How about a National Press Card, to affirm everybody's 1st Amendment rights, and to free speech? Since we'll need cards for everything. ID badge society :barf:

Evergreen
January 18, 2013, 09:17 PM
Or, maybe they can implant RFID chips in our brain that are programmed and updated via satellite or by radio or WIFI signals from authorized governing authorities that can be read with a scanner that notify people what rights we are allowed to have. This would be very convenient, efficient and accurate. Just think, no guess work or risk of false identification. The government would have 24/7 access to your body and if you are disqualified all a person has to do is scan you. Then it would be immediately updated to governing authorities that you are attempting to circumvent your allowed freedoms as specified on your RFID chip which contains your up to date information sourced from a highly secured 256-bit encrypted central government database .

Perhaps, the chips will eventually be equipped with a sedation releasing device that will stop a person attempting to commit any act that is not allowed via the data on their Rights RFID chip.

Technology plus universal identification plus corrupt governments is not always a good mix.

Alaska444
January 18, 2013, 09:24 PM
Dear Lost Sheep, I generally enjoy your wisdom and humor on gun issues, but my friend, you lost me with this one. I couldn't agree with a national FOID, we would be heading into a discussion on a national ID and the abuses associated with that as well. My vote is no.

browneu
January 18, 2013, 09:42 PM
Some people state that requiring an ID to vote is prohibitive.

How is this not the same?

So the card is shall issue. What will prevent the government from adding more conditions before issuing this license?


Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

Steve51
January 18, 2013, 10:29 PM
TOTALLY AGAINST IT!
I live in Illinois and firearm owners have to have a FOID card. We have to pay to exercise our constitutional right and our corrupt state government knows who and where we are.
TOTALLY AGAINST IT!

beatledog7
January 18, 2013, 10:37 PM
Devil's advocate position:

If such a card were used to indicate that the holder has been through the NICS process and the applicable state process and can therefore purchase a gun in person with no additional paperwork or delay, it might have some merit. After all, every time one buys a gun now he has to get a permission slip from Uncle Sam, via NICS.

But a better solution, one that I'd support, would be to eliminate the background check by removing all who can't pass it from the streets.

Recurring theme:

If we don't trust Person A to have a gun, and we know Person A can steal one or buy one illegally, why do we allow Person A to mingle with the public?

kazushi
January 19, 2013, 12:12 AM
The goal is not to reduce crime or keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The goal is to get guns out of the hands of normal law abiding citizens so the govt can steam roll over us. Any steps taken to reduce the freedom to own guns is a step towards them advancing their goal. You think the high ups in government really believe what they are saying? They know it won't reduce crime or save the children. They don't care about that. They want all the guns centralized under their control so they can use them to keep us down. All this talk about logic, reason, making sense it doesn't matter. Your rights don't matter. The 2nd amendment is some word written on a piece of paper. The only thing that gives it any substance is if the people are willing to revolt when their freedoms are taken away.

CathyGo
January 19, 2013, 12:45 AM
Hitler's first step in disarming his country was to require gun registration. That is not a small or unimportant fact. It should not be forgotten quickly.

OpelBlitz
January 19, 2013, 04:34 AM
Hitler's first step in disarming his country was to require gun registration. That is not a small or unimportant fact. It should not be forgotten quickly.

This isn't a discussion about registering firearms. Also, source on the Hitler disarming his country?

Alaska444
January 19, 2013, 04:41 AM
This isn't a discussion about registering firearms. Also, source on the Hitler disarming his country?
A national FOID would essentially be a gun registration act, think about it.

Secondly, are you serious? Asking for a source on Hitler's gun confiscation and disarmament?

In any case, do a little bit of search, won't be hard to find. Well, here, let me do it for you.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html

OpelBlitz
January 19, 2013, 04:46 AM
A national FOID would essentially be a gun registration act, think about it.

Secondly, are you serious? Asking for a source on Hitler's gun confiscation and disarmament?

In any case, do a little bit of search, won't be hard to find.

It's not essentially a gun registration act -- unless in order to comply with the rules of owning a FOID card, you need to report your guns. Perhaps I missed that part of the conversation.

And not totally relevant, you'll find just as many other sources with the proper information stating what really happened in Germany. No one has good sources. Just getting tired of people spouting this without good sources. (I'm not saying it's totally false, but I don't feel the context is correct) I think this may be worth a topic if one doesn't already exist.

Alaska444
January 19, 2013, 04:58 AM
It's not essentially a gun registration act -- unless in order to comply with the rules of owning a FOID card, you need to report your guns. Perhaps I missed that part of the conversation.

And not totally relevant, you'll find just as many other sources with the proper information stating what really happened in Germany. No one has good sources. Just getting tired of people spouting this without good sources. (I'm not saying it's totally false, but I don't feel the context is correct) I think this may be worth a topic if one doesn't already exist.
Once again, registering the PEOPLE who OWN guns is a "form" of gun registration especially when coupled with their Firarms Transfer Inquiry Program (FTIP). Would it be possible for the state to know all the "legal" owners of firearms in Illinois? The answer is yes, that is de facto registration.

Secondly, here is a more in depth version of the source I gave above. I will leave the liberal historical revisionism of the Nazi's gun control campaign for others to dispute.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

OpelBlitz
January 19, 2013, 05:17 AM
Right, that link is pretty much the source I used (Stephen Halbrook). Jews and those declared enemies of the state were disarmed, not the German people as a whole. That's the context I was referring to. Thanks for that link BTW, far more comprehensive than what I had found before. I understand this is ultimately semantics, but I didn't feel simply saying "Hitler disarmed his people" is entirely accurate.

Now with the whole FOID thing - maybe I'm just having a disconnect. You simply repeated what you said in your previous post. I do not have to register anything. Chicago residents might, I think. But the last time I lived in Chicago, I wasn't even old enough to own a gun. :) I mean, the whole FOID thing does identify gun owners to the state, but it says nothing about what that owner actually has in his possession. Maybe I was simply taking this statement too literally?

Alaska444
January 19, 2013, 05:19 AM
Right, that link is pretty much the source I used (Stephen Halbrook). Jews and those declared enemies of the state were disarmed, not the German people as a whole. That's the context I was referring to. Thanks for that link BTW, far more comprehensive than what I had found before. I understand this is ultimately semantics, but I didn't feel simply saying "Hitler disarmed his people" is entirely accurate.

Now with the whole FOID thing - maybe I'm just having a disconnect. You simply repeated what you said in your previous post. I do not have to register anything. Chicago residents might, I think. But the last time I lived in Chicago, I wasn't even old enough to own a gun. :) I mean, the whole FOID thing does identify gun owners to the state, but it says nothing about what that owner actually has in his possession. Maybe I was simply taking this statement too literally?
Is it more important to register the gun or register the owner? The FOID registers the owner, the FTIP records gun sales linked to the FOID. You MUST have a FOID to access the FTIP. How is that not a "form" of gun registration? You essentially have the same information available to the state whether starting with the gun as registration to a certain person, or registering the eligible owners and tying the gun to the owner. That makes the Illinois FOID and FTIP a de facto registration process.

In many states, the state has no clue who owns guns or who doesn't. Illinois is different.

OpelBlitz
January 19, 2013, 05:22 AM
It's important to register nothing! You have no idea how much I hate being required to have this stupid thing. Also, that doesn't take private sales into account, as most of my firearms were acquired.

Alaska444
January 19, 2013, 05:25 AM
It's important to register nothing! You have no idea how much I hate being required to have this stupid thing. Also, that doesn't take private sales into account, as most of my firearms were acquired.
Sorry, according to the Illinois State Police, all private sales are subject to these laws as well:

Does Illinois have a waiting period for firearm purchases and does it apply to private sales?

Yes. Illinois law requires withholding the delivery of a concealable weapon (i.e. a handgun) for at least 72 hours and a rifle, shotgun, or other long gun for at least 24 hours. This applies for gun dealers and private sales.

http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm

OpelBlitz
January 19, 2013, 05:28 AM
The relevance towards private sales is only that there's supposed to be a waiting period for purchases. There is no way this can be truly enforced with private sales without personally witnessing these transactions.

ETA: The point is that private purchases still aren't known to anyone but the buyer and seller.

Alaska444
January 19, 2013, 05:34 AM
THR has discussed the issue of private sales in Illinois on a previous thread. According to this, you must collect certain information and have it available for inspection if required by state police for a period of 10 years according to one comment.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=37138

OpelBlitz
January 19, 2013, 05:36 AM
I don't understand what new information this provides to the discussion. Are you trying to say I don't know how private transactions are performed in Illinois or something...?

Alaska444
January 19, 2013, 05:38 AM
I don't understand what new information this provides to the discussion. Are you trying to say I don't know how private transactions are performed in Illinois or something...?
No problem, just stating it has been discussed on another thread for anyone that wishes to read the thread that appears to contain good information. I have no idea what your understanding is or isn't, none of my business.

OpelBlitz
January 19, 2013, 05:40 AM
I gotcha. I was trying to argue the point about how a national FOID isn't necessarily registering actual guns. I guess I was being too specific. :)

daggertt
January 19, 2013, 06:34 AM
Benjamin Franklyn long ago penned, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

daggertt
January 19, 2013, 06:41 AM
The other fundamental flaw in this idea follows the law of unintended consequences. Once there is a firearm ID card for people, how hard would it be to maintain a database of firearms purchased by that person? We're not talking the current "FFLs keep sales records for a certain period", but the development of a national database wherein said gunowners' behavior is monitored. The whole point here, Lost Sheep, is that the government is lobbying for more power. Power and liberty are mutually exclusive. The more power the government has, the less liberty the people have, and vice versa.

For a more extensive treatise on this subject, i invite you to read through my posting elsewhere on this site.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=696878

sonick808
January 19, 2013, 07:06 AM
no need for a card to confirm a god-given right

alsaqr
January 19, 2013, 07:43 AM
Why do i need a FOID card "to confirm my Second amendment rights"? FOID cards are gun registration schemes with another name.

legaleagle_45
January 19, 2013, 11:19 AM
I would prefer a notation on normal identification documents, such as a drivers license which identifies persons who may not purchas firearms

VVelox
January 19, 2013, 02:52 PM
legaleagle_45, the problem with that idea is it does not by pass having to run it through NICS as one does not know if it is current or not outside of being able to check if it is expired or not.

Texan Scott
January 19, 2013, 03:26 PM
Your proposal doesn't bother me from a rights standpoint; I just don't see how the added costs and layers of bureaucracy would provide much we don't already have in Texas. You start with a universal assumption of competence and liberty to exercise the rkba; that's good, but we already have that here (unless the Fed intrudes), and we don't need a card to assume it - we just assume it.

The only thing this really offers is a card one MUST have (trusting the Fed to do right and keep its word without attempting to regulate or restrict- yeah, I'd trust the Fed with an unconstitutional power like that). The card is presumably uncounterfeitable and uncircumventable (like green cards?) with the usual severe (and virtually unenforceable / unenforced) penalties for counterfeiting or circumventing the card system (like green cards). The fact that penalties for getting around the system are written into the system is as good as admiting the system is only as good as the will of its users.

Instead of all the bureaucratic complication, we just assume the right of the law-abiding to have guns and punish criminals caught with them. Oddly enough, it seems to be working for us at least as well as anything the blue states have going on.

No card required.

Lost Sheep
January 20, 2013, 04:56 AM
I wish I could thank each and every one of you who answered my post by name, but there are so many. I have learned much and do appreciate the thought put into those posts.

Twiki357 did point out that this is a lot like a national ID card. Yes. And if you don't think restricting use and access (similar to the current laws firewall around IRS data) are enough, you have a valid objection. Likewise the difficulties of error correcting and the potential to expand governmental control into unconstitutional infringements. I see these as the greatest flaws pointed out so far.

The other highlights:


Oh, great idea, a government database of firearms owners! No, this is a government database of everyone, whether they own firearms or not. The only data in it is a everyone's identity and if that person has a disqualification. No information about whether or not they have ever stepped into a gun shop in their life or if they own 50 guns. That is less than what your Social Security record holds.


Allegedly, the reason for any controls on firearms is to reduce or prevent violent crimes where firearms are used.

So what violent crimes would be prevented by an FOID? What crime rate would actually be reduced by an FOID, other than paperwork crimes?Violent crimes? None. The prevented crime(s) would be those attempting to infringe the 2nd Amendment. At least, that was my idea.

Alaska444, thanks for your kind words in post 29 and for taking the OP for what it was intended to be. Your post 38 missed the point that the national FOID would have absolutely no firearms information in it. Not even if a purchase took place nor a count of number of inquiries. (Thanks OpelBlitz, post 39/41 for noting that for me.)

Evergreen (post 30). I love it. It goes one better than "Minority Report". You have a great premise for a Science Fiction novel/movie.


The other fundamental flaw in this idea follows the law of unintended consequences. Once there is a firearm ID card for people, how hard would it be to maintain a database of firearms purchased by that person? We're not talking the current "FFLs keep sales records for a certain period", but the development of a national database wherein said gunowners' behavior is monitored.You are right about unintended consequences.

Recording any kind of activity would be prohibited by the law establishing the database. I did anticipate that someone would want to monitor inquiry activity in the database, so thought to specify that not even a count of inquiries would be kept (certainly not attached to individuals or locales).

I DID NOT anticipate the unintended consequences of making the post. The firestorm of misunderstanding has been astounding.

To all who read the post as me supporting restrictions (and seeing that as illogical for someone living in one of the few states where owning a firearm is still relatively free of infringement) you did not understand the O.P.

To all who saw this as anything like the Illinois FOID in more than name, you did not understand the O.P.

To anyone who saw this as registering firearms, counting them or even knowing about them, you did not understand the O.P.

To all who say this should be unnecessary, you are right. But so should be the 2nd Amendment, and the other 9, too. The Framers of the Constitution at first thought the Bill of Rights were unnecessary. But they thought better of it and that is why they are AMENDMENTS to the Constitution and not written right in. They strengthen the Constitution.

To those who don't want to be in a national database. I've got some bad news for you.


no need for a card to confirm a god-given right

Why do i need a FOID card "to confirm my Second amendment rights"? FOID cards are gun registration schemes with another name.No need for the Second Amendment, either. God-given means God-GIVEN. In fact, I don't even need God to give it to me. But that is another thread.


I would prefer a notation on normal identification documents, such as a drivers license which identifies persons who may not purchase firearmsWe have something like that in Alaska for people prohibited from buying alcohol after multiple DUIs

legaleagle_45, the problem with that idea is it does not by pass having to run it through NICS as one does not know if it is current or not outside of being able to check if it is expired or not.My idea is that it never expires. Checking would be immediate with a phone call or computer connection to get current status.


Your proposal doesn't bother me from a rights standpoint; I just don't see how the added costs and layers of bureaucracy would provide much we don't already have in Texas. You start with a universal assumption of competence and liberty to exercise the rkba; that's good, but we already have that here (unless the Fed intrudes), and we don't need a card to assume it - we just assume it.I was hoping the costs would be salable with the argument that this bureaucracy would be cheaper than the patchwork we have now and the lives saved by a better-armed society and the savings gained by the absence of all the needless deaths and injuries prevented by 1) prohibited persons not having arms and 2) all other persons being ABLE to protect themselves.

The only thing this really offers is a card one MUST have (trusting the Fed to do right and keep its word without attempting to regulate or restrict- yeah, I'd trust the Fed with an unconstitutional power like that)...(edited for brevity)[/QUOTE]Yep. The unintended consequences thing and the eternal vigilance thing.

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787 a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got?” With no hesitation, Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

The quip that "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.", I think, does not apply to the O.P. The liberty and safety have already been partially lost. This is the vigilance required to secure freedom, liberty AND safety.

Again, thanks to all who responded to my O.P. I have read and will consider further the issues you brought up. The implications of a National ID and the ability to extend big government's power foremost among those concerns, as the registration and rights/privilege questions have already been covered.

Please consider me schooled (at least lesson 1). In the future I will try to do better at expressing myself and more perceptive in the unintended consequences department.

Lost Sheep

p.s. Is this a coincidence?
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=697024

winterhorse290
January 20, 2013, 09:51 AM
let,s see here. you want me to trot down to the local leo and tell him how many guns i own and what type? name address and probably finger prints. maybe while we,re at it we can give our ipo address and cellphone id codes. then maybe sign an agreement for visits to our homes by the police for a quick look around anytime they want. might want to give them a list of any prescibed drugs we,re taking and have a nice little chat about how we feel about whats going on in the country.
i don,t think so

JRWhit
January 20, 2013, 10:35 AM
Lost Sheep, I see what you intend to accomplish,but I just don't see how it could work. I believe as shown here public support will probably be negative.
But at the real issue on this, any sort of regulation is like a seed. It only grows from where it's planted. It may start as you stated, but would eventually have additions as to what constitutes revoking the rights of a citizen. At some point encroachment would continue and it would be very easy to track gun owners based on the number of times there status is checked. This also, arguably no different from what we have now, makes the law abiding citizen in burden of proving they are a law abiding citizen rather the Government proving they are not.
This could not offer any protection of the 2nd amendment giving that it is a law and subject to each new house of congress. No law passed can constrain future members of congress,leaving the door wide open for change at the whim of a new session. The only way to solidly protect our freedoms are by constitutional amendments, and we already see how they walk all over those.
Further more, this falls under the misconception that the regulation of law abiding people is the answer to our problem with law breakers. I don't believe that was your intent but more a method of getting support of the anti gun crowd and at the same time protecting supporters of the 2nd amendment.
It would be a novel concept, but I just don't see that it would work and in the end leave us worse off. Your intent is a good one, keep thinking.

Tcruse
January 20, 2013, 10:55 AM
The one thing that the govenment is not going to give up is the ability to track down the legal owner of a weapon that they obtain as the result of being used in a crime. Now, if the police have a gun it is possible to obtain the first dealer from the manufacture and then trace the trail of 4473 and private transfer records(?) to the actual owner. I can see where this may be helpful, however, the current scheme prevents the government from having a database that has person X as owning a sepecific list of guns.
Maybe we should just add a field to our driver license that indicates the legal restriction of gun rights. That way as far as the federal governement would know all drivers without the restriction is a gun owner. Harder to go and inspect/take any guns owned by the person. Also, this would give a person that is restricted a up front warning and a method of due process to get the restriction removed. For non-drivers, most states issue a state ID card.
We could continue the requirement that sellers keep records of the disposal of firearms, either sold, destroyed or lost.
I oppose the use of medical records or presctiption records by ANY government agency.

Ken C
January 20, 2013, 11:10 AM
Any proposal to "regulate" either the weapon or the individual needs to address the following questions;

Does it keep guns out of the hands of criminals ?

Does it make criminals out of current legal owners ?

A "No" on the first and/or a "Yes" on the second should disqualify the proposal from any further consideration.

Every 2A discussion I have starts with those two questions. It's interesting to listen to the deflection tactics.

So, does a national "FOID' do either of the above ? "No" and "Yes", further discussion is not productive.

Lost Sheep
January 20, 2013, 03:12 PM
let,s see here. you want me to trot down to the local leo and tell him how many guns i own and what type? name address and probably finger prints. maybe while we,re at it we can give our ipo address and cellphone id codes. then maybe sign an agreement for visits to our homes by the police for a quick look around anytime they want. might want to give them a list of any prescibed drugs we,re taking and have a nice little chat about how we feel about whats going on in the country.
i don,t think so
No, no, no, no, no. Go back and read post #1

Lost Sheep
January 20, 2013, 03:27 PM
Any proposal to "regulate" either the weapon or the individual needs to address the following questions;

Does it keep guns out of the hands of criminals ?

Does it make criminals out of current legal owners ?

A "No" on the first and/or a "Yes" on the second should disqualify the proposal from any further consideration.

Every 2A discussion I have starts with those two questions. It's interesting to listen to the deflection tactics.

So, does a national "FOID' do either of the above ? "No" and "Yes", further discussion is not productive.
I believe the answers are "No" and "No".

The former is not accomplished by any measure short of elimination of all firearms of all types, followed by archery gear, blowguns and eventually, rocks. But I hoped it would firm up protection for the 2nd Amendment.

The latter, I wish someone would explain to me. (The original post specified -per the 2nd Amendment- that ALL PERSONS are entitled to own any firearm. Loss of the right is as it is now, felony conviction, etc. Ordinary citizens maintain their right forever, no renewal, no fee, no action on the citizen's part whatsoever required. Birthright.)

Lost Sheep

Lost Sheep
January 20, 2013, 03:31 PM
Lost Sheep, I see what you intend to accomplish,but I just don't see how it could work. I believe as shown here public support will probably be negative.Point WELL taken.
But at the real issue on this, any sort of regulation is like a seed. It only grows from where it's planted. It may start as you stated, but would eventually have additions as to what constitutes revoking the rights of a citizen. Yeah. "Legislative creep."

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" (attributed to Thomas Jefferson)
Further more, this falls under the misconception that the regulation of law abiding people is the answer to our problem with law breakers. I don't believe that was your intent but more a method of getting support of the anti gun crowd and at the same time protecting supporters of the 2nd amendment.Perceptive. I think you are the first to mention it.
It would be a novel concept, but I just don't see that it would work and in the end leave us worse off. Your intent is a good one, keep thinking.
Thank you, JRWhit. I will try to upgrade the quality of my thinking.

Lost Sheep

Texan Scott
January 20, 2013, 04:09 PM
I suppose it might bear pointing out that criminals who buy guns illegally can and do buy from criminals who sell guns illegally. This idea would not change that. Guns sales in crack houses at midnight have never involved id cards, and still wouldn't. What, then, does the card system accomplish beyond regulating the already self-regulating?

Again, if you believe we should assume the right, just assume it. There is no illegal way for a legal person to obtain a legal gun; there is no legal way for an illegal person to obtain an illegal gun. Attempting to regulate the former is oppressive and unnecessary; attempting to regulate the latter is largely impossible and remediatable only by punishment.

You're not trying to regulate the self-regulating, which is to your credit and why I don't view your proposal as infringement. What you are suggesting is the creation of a bureaucracy that cannot achieve its stated purpose, and at unknown expense and with unforeseeable consequences.

I for one view the creation of a regulatory body as a granting of power, given up by citizens for the use of bureaucrats. Power given away is often all but impossible to take back, it is often all but impossible to hold individaully resposible for their actions those bureaucrats hiding behind policies of their own making; and of course, power corrupts. This is why it was truly said that government which governs least governs best.

I don't view your proposal as abusive or wrong... just expensive, unnecessary, ineffective, and fraught with potential for future abuse.

blkbrd666
January 20, 2013, 04:21 PM
+1 on what Texan Scott said!

And I like that sig line.... If you keep sheep, have dogs. Coyotes don't respect fences, only teeth.

If you keep guns, have stones. Politicians don't respect rights, only stones.

JRWhit
January 20, 2013, 04:27 PM
I love Texans

JRWhit
January 20, 2013, 04:30 PM
Thank you, JRWhit. I will try to upgrade the quality of my thinking.
It's not a quality problem, didn't mean to give that impression. You see a problem and your looking at solutions. That's never a bad thing.Every idea starts somewhere.

Texan Scott
January 20, 2013, 04:32 PM
Lost Sheep, it has finally dawned on me that what you are actually trying to do is eliminate the necessity for, and potential abuse of, the federal NICS system.

May I be so bold as to suggest that the NICS system IS unnecessary, and its very existence (an attempt by the feds to regulate that which our Founders forbade them to infringe) IS an unconstitutional abuse of power?

Some will object that without NICS, criminals would have easy access to guns; I can only point out that obviously they already DO. It might sound like a fine idea, but I ask you, has it worked?

If you believe we should assume every citizen's rkba, just ASSUME IT.

If you believe we need to do away with the present NICS system, just DO AWAY WITH IT.

Pointshoot
January 20, 2013, 04:35 PM
Its pretty d*mned simple.

This has nothing to do with 'safety' at all.

Despite all the emotional uproar and knee jerk reactions, youre much more likely to be struck by lightening, be killed by a club or hammer, be killed by being prescribed the wrong medications, and much more likely to be killed in a car accident . . . . than be a victim in a mass shooting.

Bottomline, - hardcore antis want the American people disarmed.

All these idiotic 'reasonable proposals' merely divert peoples attention from what's going on. Its just a big psy-op and some seem to be falling for it. What they need to do is study history. The antis will keep coming back for more. Only the USA and Switzerland recognizes the citizens right to keep and bear arms by written law.

The Lone Haranguer
January 20, 2013, 04:46 PM
We have been stepping back away from ever encroaching lines until our backs are at the edge of the cliff. There is nowhere to go from there but down. No more concessions.

Onward Allusion
January 20, 2013, 04:56 PM
Lost Sheep

"This idea was SUPPOSED to be a draconian move in SUPPORT of the right to keep and bear arms."

"armoredman, did you not read the part about this being a "shall issue" card?"

"This is shall issue, revocable only for cause, access restricted and penalties for governmental mis-use."

"The existence of the database affirms the right just as the 2nd amendment affirms the right."

"The idea of the database is to remove the whole waiting period, background check, asking permission of your local sheriff to buy and the other hurdles to our rights that are already (unconstitutionally) in the way. It puts the hurdles in the way of the anti-gun and protects the gun owner (and prospective gun owner)."

Just a few excerpts from one of your posts...

Shall issue doesn't mean anything. Once data is collected on you as a gun owner and perhaps the guns you have...guess who's doors get knocked on for a turn-in? No, I'm not referring to the current administration, but how about some administration 10 years down the line when our economy is along the lines of the current Greeks or Spaniards? I'm sure the bulk of folks don't think that's possible, but ask someone 100 years ago what the odds are of having a black president or 50 years ago on gay marriage.

Once you start keeping track of who is able to purchase/own guns, you might as well hand in your 1st Amendment rights, too.

Alaska444
January 20, 2013, 05:17 PM
Dear Lost Sheep, thank you for the great discussion as usual even though I am not sold on the idea myself. However, it is important that we do have and keep an open mind to discussion itself. If we lose the ability to communicate even on the side of the RKBA, then we are indeed divided and conquered.

Texan Scott
January 20, 2013, 05:33 PM
I think some of you have missed Lost Sheep's point. His idea, as it's evolved, gives EVERYONE a card whether they own guns or not, and marks it No Guns if they become prohibited. The same card could be used to denote loss of voting or driving status. It would not register guns, or indicate that the holder owned guns, only that they weren't barred from doing so. It sounds like a fine idea, and completely innocuous (if not later twisted and abused).

I actually applaud his willingness to float the idea, take the heat for it, and try to find a working solution by openly and fairly engaging on the issue.

My only problem with his proposed solution thus far (as I've tried my best to explain) is the expense and potential future risk of a creating a new federal bureaucracy that actually accomplishes nothing we couldn't already do by simply assuming by law the right of free citizens and eliminating federal infringement.

In other words, don't REregulate... DEregulate.

PBR Streetgang
January 20, 2013, 05:55 PM
Not sure if this has been covered ,BUT, if you give the Federal government the right over all gunowners it would be easy for the Feds in power at the time (like now) to change one law and quickly affect everyone such as with registration or confiscation.

As long as 50 different states can hold onto their own respective laws and we don't give ultimate power to the Feds , it would be a lot harder to change all 50 states. Voters would be in a uproar and use favorable states as examples for pro-gun issues. State politicians would be more afraid of losing their offices and their figurative heads!

Lost Sheep
January 20, 2013, 08:45 PM
Texan Scott. Thank you. You got it, and expressed it better than I have. If all 300 million of us are marked as qualified to own, then those who actually do own are more difficult to single out in the crowd.

PBR Streetgang, yep. My idea is tantamount to a national ID. (Even if there were no card involved, but just an ID number to be accessed when purchasing a gun, an idea that evolved as I read these posts).

And as JRWhit pointed out earlier, "Legislative Creep" would be an attractive path for those who would regulate other activites (e.g. what spirits we could buy). When the Social Security Numbers were first done, they were expressly prohibited from being used as an identification. It only took about 30 years for that rule to be bent.

Having run through this wringer (and boy, am I sore) I will be better able to argue against benign-sounding "gun control" proposals.

Note: Gun control is NOT about gun control, nor even saving lives. It is about CONTROL, pure and simple. Saving lives is just an excuse.

Lost Sheep.

Alaska444
January 20, 2013, 09:05 PM
I think some of you have missed Lost Sheep's point. His idea, as it's evolved, gives EVERYONE a card whether they own guns or not, and marks it No Guns if they become prohibited. The same card could be used to denote loss of voting or driving status. It would not register guns, or indicate that the holder owned guns, only that they weren't barred from doing so. It sounds like a fine idea, and completely innocuous (if not later twisted and abused).

I actually applaud his willingness to float the idea, take the heat for it, and try to find a working solution by openly and fairly engaging on the issue.

My only problem with his proposed solution thus far (as I've tried my best to explain) is the expense and potential future risk of a creating a new federal bureaucracy that actually accomplishes nothing we couldn't already do by simply assuming by law the right of free citizens and eliminating federal infringement.

In other words, don't REregulate... DEregulate.
Sorry, but what you are describing is nothing short of a national ID. That is a different discussion than a FOID, but not a good idea.

doom
January 20, 2013, 09:18 PM
As someone who lives in Illinois, all I can say is, this idea is stupid. In my view, there should be NO background checks, no waiting periods, or limitations on arms, heck I'll even go so far as to say that, anyone who serves time in a jail, for a crime other than murder; should have their rights restored (just like in the westerns). Evil is evil, it's just like Coke Cola, same recipe, re-branded into many knock offs throughout the course of history (but I do like Coke Cola).

I've been fighting gun-control in my state ever since I got an interest in shooting firearms at paper (2004). Let me tell you, they, the opponent, do NOT care for compromise, and they HATE guns, and our right to arms. I can't say this enough, no amount of laws, licensing will be enough to stop them.

Also, for those of you who live in states where there is no FOID and Constitutional Carry, I have to ask, what are you thinking? Look, I know things are bad now, under the current administration, but if there is one thing which I have observed, it's that presidents and their visions do NOT last. I look at Reagan's vision for our country, and if Obama and Clinton were able to screw it up, then we should (in the same manner) be able to do likewise with Obama's BS, after he leave's office.

If anything, we have got to focus on our state legislatures, and vote out ANYONE who even has the slightest support for ANY form of gun-control. I don't care if they are Democrat, or Republican, if they support banning high-caps, they support the eventual banning of all modern rifles and handguns through that design alone.

If they support a ban on 'Assault' weapons, they will eventually go after your shotgun, and anything that can hold more than one shell. They don't care about compromise, they only care about control.

Don't give up, use the legislative process, put good people in, and let's win back the country. It can be done. Another point, the current wait for a real FOID card in this state, is BEYOND what the law demands, and what the law REQUIRES the state to issue one by. The normal wait for a FOID is 30 days, that's how long the state has to process, approve and issue your card. One problem, when you got three people down in Springfield processing applications for nearly the entire population of the state, the wait gets longer, and people get discouraged. That's the whole point of any gun-control scheme, make it seem reasonable, but in the end, make it so hard, so difficult, so expensive, that people gradually lose interest in buying firearms.

It's really bad in Illinois, why? We will have, in 180 days, and counting, the right to keep and bear arms. Now, as someone working behind the scene, I can tell you, the Chicago democrats do NOT just want people with a FOID, carrying guns on their turf, in their city, not unless they can have something about it. We'll have shall issue LTC by years end, but it will be an EXTREMELY long wait. Why? because you'll need both a FOID to apply for the LTC. Now, if you have the unfortunate circumstance of living here like I do, even renewing will cost you 30+ days, in the wake of legislation being passed. Food for thought.

DON'T GIVE THEM AN INCH!

Texan Scott
January 20, 2013, 09:24 PM
Alaska444, I happen to fully agree with you.

This discussion has been purely from a 2A standpoint of course. Anything else quickly degenerates into immigration reform, what is / isn't racist, what Jesus would or wouldn't have done, and what caliber he shoots, it wouldn't be 9mm surely? And we all wear tinfoil hats to keep the feds from broadcasting propaganda to the radios in our molar fillings....

But yes, IMO a Federal ID card, even one that didn't infringe on the RKBA, could still be a very poor idea... just not a here'n now, talking to Lost Sheep on THR kinda discussion.

danoam
January 20, 2013, 09:27 PM
There is already an official document that states that I have the right to keep and bear arms.

PBR Streetgang
January 20, 2013, 09:30 PM
We gun owners make a lot of our own problems by not being responsible . If I could have a way to verify that a private sale I was making was to a person that could legally own a firearm ,I'd have no problem doing that.....

I'd like to see a situation where the seller could have a number to call and verify the buyer was able to buy a firearm. I wouldn't have a problem if this had a minimal cost ($5-$10) You received a reference number to verify your call.

No need to to file the firearm info ,just that the buyer was verified. The buyer and seller(if they came to a agreement) would privately swap sales info.
This wouldn't even indicate a sale but only a check of eligibility of a possible purchase.

any opinion?

Texan Scott
January 20, 2013, 09:41 PM
If it worried me, I might just ask to see their voters' registration card... tells me they're a reasonably responsible citizen of my state and not a convicted felon.

If they didn't have one, and I don't know them, and they worry me, I just wouldn't sell to them.

Of course, I'm not inclined to sell guns anyway, and I've never in my life handed a gun, loaded or otherwise, to someone I didn't know personally. Silly idea, me doing that.

HighExpert
January 21, 2013, 01:11 AM
The way I see it I have a right to buy a gun. If you want to deny me, prove that I am ineligible. I do not intend to help you do that. If these government permits were all they were cracked up to be "Why do I need an NICS check when I have a concealed carry permit? I know, not all states require it but VA does. You know the state with the gun show loophole everytime we hear the media talk about it. What, you mean VA actually have a more restrictive law than say FL? Why do I have to fill out a 4473 if there is no gun registration scheme when I have a CCW?

VVelox
January 21, 2013, 07:58 AM
We gun owners make a lot of our own problems by not being responsible . If I could have a way to verify that a private sale I was making was to a person that could legally own a firearm ,I'd have no problem doing that.....

I'd like to see a situation where the seller could have a number to call and verify the buyer was able to buy a firearm. I wouldn't have a problem if this had a minimal cost ($5-$10) You received a reference number to verify your call.

No need to to file the firearm info ,just that the buyer was verified. The buyer and seller(if they came to a agreement) would privately swap sales info.
This wouldn't even indicate a sale but only a check of eligibility of a possible purchase.

any opinion?
No issue with that, except for the cost.

Also the issue with not being responsible is a small minority. And nothing will change that. What needs fought is how it is portrayed as it being the majority.

abajaj11
January 21, 2013, 10:24 AM
If the government can issue you a card to exercise a right, then they can take that card away. Should we have a government issued ID before we can speak in public or practice our religion?
No, our citizenship is all the ID we need. Or at least so it says, in the Constitution.
:)

TheOld Man
January 21, 2013, 01:19 PM
Some folks have apparently forgot how the American Revolution actually started.
The British decided they would try to learn exactly who had muskets, ball and powder -- and intended to confiscate same. They sent a force to do exactly that, and were met by 70-odd Minutemen at Lexington Common, bearing arms.
The British ordered the Colonists to surrender their weapons. The Colonists refused.
Nobody is quite sure who shot first, but that was the actual start of the American Revolution.

easyg
January 21, 2013, 02:30 PM
Everyone, upon reaching majority (emancipated minor, adulthood, etc) gets a Firearms Owner ID Card. Everyone not prohibited by prior adjudication. This includes non-citizens in this country legally (just as current law allows).

This is a "Shall Issue" rule. No local jurisdictions prevent issue of the card. (It is, after all, not a weapon itself, but a verification of one's right and DEFINITELY NOT A GRANTING OF A PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT.)
And what happens when the federal government simply refuses to issue this card to a particular citizen?

Does the citizen then go and hire an attorney and sue the government?
And if that citizen happens to be too poor to hire an attorney?
And if that citizen happens to be too illiterate or too uneducated to file the law suit himself?
Eventually only the wealthy and educated elite will be able to fight such denials to issue such a card.



Besides, the 2nd Amendment clearly states that my Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

By being forced to show a national ID card (or any ID card for that matter), and then being electronically investigated for any possible crimes that might prevent me from obtaining a firearm IS infringing upon my 2nd Amendment Right.

The U.S. justice system was founded upon the "assumption of innocence".
Having to prove that I am not a criminal before being ALLOWED to purchase a firearm takes away this presumption of innocence.
In effect, the federal government is saying "you are guilty unless you can prove that you're not".
This is completely wrong and flies in the face of freedom itself!

jerkface11
January 21, 2013, 02:52 PM
How about we lock up the dangerous people and just assume that everyone walking around is an honest law abiding person.

easyg
January 21, 2013, 04:05 PM
How about we lock up the dangerous people and just assume that everyone walking around is an honest law abiding person.
But who gets to decide who is dangerous?

Many of those in the Senate and in the Congress, and many of those in the FBI, DEA, and BATF would probably consider many of the folks on this forum to be "dangerous".
They would probably consider anyone who wants an "assault rifle" to be dangerous.
Or anyone who speaks out against the government to be dangerous.

jerkface11
January 21, 2013, 04:22 PM
Violent criminals.

joeschmoe
January 21, 2013, 04:37 PM
NO!!!

Brockak47
January 21, 2013, 04:48 PM
I'll pass on that terrible idea, do you also want me to get a card to exercise my other rights too?


How has that FOID card helped Illinois ??

Lost Sheep
January 21, 2013, 06:34 PM
I'll pass on that terrible idea, do you also want me to get a card to exercise my other rights too?


How has that FOID card helped Illinois ??
Read post #7, please. The only thing this idea shares with Illinois is four letters. Nothing else.

Lost Sheep

joeschmoe
January 21, 2013, 06:44 PM
Your right. It's worse. This idea would be at the mercy of Congress, not local government.

When was the last time Congress passed a "clean" bill? Without christmas tree amendments all over it. Changing it, adding exceptions, restrictive clauses and unrelated pork barrel spending? How do you think this will get through?

Why not simply enforce the current restrictions on the government in the BoR's? Like the 2nd Amendment.

sfed
January 22, 2013, 03:28 AM
Illinois finally got the 2nd amendment back and now some anti gun rights IDIOT wants to go NATION WIDE with the insanity??? NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM!!!

Alaska444
January 22, 2013, 03:55 AM
Illinois finally got the 2nd amendment back and now some anti gun rights IDIOT wants to go NATION WIDE with the insanity??? NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM!!!
Sorry, Lost Sheep is not some ***** as you incorrectly called him.

He is a very thoughtful, caring and 2A supporting gun owner. Read the posts. Although I disagree with his proposal, I appreciate his wisdom and courage to engage in such a discussion. I would hope you would as well.

Kiln
January 22, 2013, 04:00 AM
Remember when the Nazi's asked the Jews to wear a little star to identify them as Jewish people?

This is similar.

Texan Scott
January 22, 2013, 05:40 AM
Really, this was an awesome debate for upperclassman civics ... but I'm afraid a few people came into the lecture late, and haven't kept up with the required reading...

Gentlemen, it's been a pleasure. Until next time...

Regards,

-TS

Onward Allusion
January 22, 2013, 09:52 PM
Lost Sheep
<SNIP>This is shall issue, revocable only for cause, access restricted and penalties for governmental mis-use.

What about folks who don't get the card? They don't fall under the 2nd? If they are required to get the card regardless of whether they own a gun or not, then it becomes a national ID as someone else mentioned. So, it is bad on both counts.

The existence of the database affirms the right just as the 2nd amendment affirms the right.

The idea of the database is to remove the whole waiting period, background check, asking permission of your local sheriff to buy and the other hurdles to our rights that are already (unconstitutionally) in the way. It puts the hurdles in the way of the anti-gun and protects the gun owner (and prospective gun owner).

We already have NICS. It has flaws but it can and should fixed. Why do we need another database? NICS data isn't retained. (at least that's the way it is suppose to be).

berettaprofessor
January 22, 2013, 10:06 PM
The only thing this idea shares with Illinois is four letters. Nothing else

And the connection that it takes a RIGHT and makes it a government-granted PRIVLEDGE. Try this one one for size: If you don't have the correct card, can I quarter some soldiers in your house?

NO NO NO NO H NO

ConstitutionCowboy
January 22, 2013, 10:19 PM
Help me clear my mind on this proposal. If there are holes in it, please tell me where. On its surface it seems like a workable idea that preserves 2nd Amendment rights, privacy and helps (helps, mind you) keep firearms out of the hands of those who have legitimately lost those rights.

Probably been said already, but here it comes again:

Here's the hole: Anyone who cannot be trusted with arms after adjudication and has not been executed, belongs in prison, or in an institution, or under 100% guardianship. No "FOID" card needed anymore.

You're welcome.

Woody

Lost Sheep
January 23, 2013, 04:54 AM
What about folks who don't get the card? They don't fall under the 2nd? If they are required to get the card regardless of whether they own a gun or not, then it becomes a national ID as someone else mentioned. So, it is bad on both counts.



We already have NICS. It has flaws but it can and should fixed. Why do we need another database? NICS data isn't retained. (at least that's the way it is suppose to be).
Thanks for responding, Onward Allusion.

You don't actually have to GET or carry the card. Everyone gets one. You don't have to apply it just IS yours. I thought post #1 was clear on that.

I believe NICS flaws should be easier to find and fix under this idea.

I think the thread has probably run its course, though. The comments are getting redundant and the difficulty of reviewing the entire thread before weighing in appears now to be a bar to productive input.

For additional fun, I direct your attention to this thread:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=697024
which, unfortunately is closed but brings up some good points, too.

Lost Sheep

JRWhit
January 23, 2013, 06:52 AM
But who gets to decide who is dangerous?

Many of those in the Senate and in the Congress, and many of those in the FBI, DEA, and BATF would probably consider many of the folks on this forum to be "dangerous".
They would probably consider anyone who wants an "assault rifle" to be dangerous.
Or anyone who speaks out against the government to be dangerous.
I'll do it.

abajaj11
January 23, 2013, 09:22 AM
Anyone who still thinks a national FOID is a "reasonable compromise" with those who would enslave us, please check this out:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=698024
:)

Tcruse
January 23, 2013, 09:25 AM
"Here's the hole: Anyone who cannot be trusted with arms after adjudication and has not been executed, belongs in prison, or in an institution, or under 100% guardianship. No "FOID" card needed anymore."

+1

tacmedicp94
January 23, 2013, 12:40 PM
This is how I read it. Everyone upon reaching a certain age gets a number. For gods sake stop calling it a FOID card. A simple phone call with your number gets a yes or no response as to whether you can own a firearm. Your name would not be associated with the number at all. Things such as felony convictions, violent crimes, mental issues etc, get you moved to the "no" list. Much like the NCIS checks are today. In this case EVERYONE gets a number, whether you own guns or not. Even OBama and Feinstein get a number. There will never be any info added to the number as to the number or types of firearms owned.
Do I have this right?

On the surface this sounds ok. But who determines what kicks you in the "no" category. Who decides that besides the restrictions we already have, felons etc., that my 3 speeding tickets in the past month obviously make me a danger to society, so I should not be allowed to own firearms?

There is just too much potential for abuse from a left leaning government. Also without some sort of picture ID, whats to keep someone who has been moved to the "no" list from just spouting out a random set of numbers and hope that the number they just made up is able to purchase firearms? Without a picture ID how does the seller know the number you just gave them is actually yours? This moves us back into the national ID argument.

So, on the surface, once you move past the "FOID" name the idea sounds OK. But, if you really start to look at it a little deeper, it seems that there would be too many ways for abuse both by the government or by an individual to make the idea feasible.

PavePusher
January 23, 2013, 12:56 PM
May I please see your government -issued Book Owners Identification Card? Your Warrant Required for Searches Card? Your Freedom from Slavery Card?

'Nuff said.

brickeyee
January 23, 2013, 05:58 PM
As soon as we have a first amendment license that (like broadcasters) newspapers must shoe they operate is in the 'public interest' as determined by the bureaucrats.:evil:

Lost Sheep
January 24, 2013, 02:23 AM
As soon as we have a first amendment license that (like broadcasters) newspapers must shoe they operate is in the 'public interest' as determined by the bureaucrats.:evil:
Actually, all broadcasters using the public airways do have a certificate on file (abailable for inspection by the public) certifying that they operate in the public interest. It is renews periodically and a public comment period goes along with that renewal.

Was I just baited?

In any event, while the analogy is not quite perfect your point is well taken.

Lost Sheep

armoredman
January 25, 2013, 04:42 PM
You don't actually have to GET or carry the card. Everyone gets one. You don't have to apply it just IS yours.

Let me correct that for you...

You don't actually have to GET or carry a card, because everyone gets the right direct from the Second Amendment. You don't have to apply for it, it just IS yours.

That's the way it should read. Any government permission slip instantly destroys the right and devolves it to a government controlled privilege, no matter what clever phraseology or name is applied.

brickeyee
January 26, 2013, 12:41 PM
Newspapers do not have a 'public interest' requirement was the point.

Lost Sheep
January 27, 2013, 03:28 AM
(refer to posts 109,110, 112 to see the history of this conversation)

Oops You are correct. Newspapers are an apt comparison.

Sorry about mis-reading your post.

But the thread is not about getting permission to exercise a right. It is about a more efficient and fair way for our government to administer the way it infringes on that right (and to more tightly limit the way government infringes).

Lost Sheep

NWCP
January 27, 2013, 07:30 AM
No national cards please. The Second Amendment and a clean record is all I should need to purchase and carry a firearm. If I'm stark raving mad it is the duty of my doctor to report that fact to the NCIS crowd. The same goes for felons and drug addicts. They should be in a data base that is part of the procedure. As to the weapon I'm purchasing, that should be none of their business. If you read the Federalist Papers regarding the Second Amendment we should be able to openly purchase an MP5, AR16, or a Thompson without special permission. Citizens were originally allowed to be armed with the same weapons as the military carried. How else were they supposed to prevent a tyrannical government from confiscating their weapons and making them subjects once again?

thump_rrr
January 27, 2013, 08:00 AM
I'll preface this by saying that since I'm from north of the border I'm an outsider looking in.

For those that oppose some sort of FOID as Lost Sheep laid out in Post #1 since the 2nd amendment is your FOID card I ask this question.

Can you walk into a store anywhere in America and put your money on the counter and walk out with a firearm without any further action by the seller?

The answer is NO since you must pass a NICS.

What if it was a simple swipe card?
Swipe the card, get a green light buy whatever you like, no inputing what you purchased, no phone call, no waiting.
What if it eliminated online sales going to an FFL and had the firearm ship directly to your home saving you fees?

We can access our money from anywhere in the world with a debit card 24/7/365 why can't your file be accessed the same way to give a simple Prohibited, Non Prohibited status.

In Canada, where we don't have the rights you have in the USA, we have a licensing system which we show our card, pay for our purchase and walk out with our firearm (NonRestricted Long Gun).

We can also purchase online from either a business or a private individual and have our firearms mailed directly to our homes.

The point is that you are already regulated by NICS so delusions of an absolute right given to by God and affirmed by the 2nd amendment are just that, a delusion.

LNK
January 27, 2013, 08:08 AM
Why is it that every day now there is a new "heres my new wonderful idea to help eliminate my rights" thread?

How much time do you need reading this board to know we have all had enough, the line in the sand has been drawn? We will not accept any more compromises of our rights! Stop the appeasement of those that want to destroy this country. They will nibble at the constitution and take any piece you allow.

Here is what you do step by step if you want to help.

1. Write, call "and" email your representatives often. Let them know you are keeping score.

2. Take someone shooting. Safely...

3. Repeat step #1.

4. Repeat step #2.

Follow this 4 step process on a regular basis, and you wont have to worry about your rights.

LNK

JohnBT
January 27, 2013, 05:28 PM
A national card will be rejected for the same reason states such as Virginia won't allow the use of a carry permit to bypass the instant check system. And the reason is: You could be arrested, tried and convicted and still have that card in your possession. It would be good until the expiration date, too.

"Make them turn it in" you say? They'll claim they lost it.

Driver's licenses pose nearly the same problem after a DUI conviction; at least until a cop pulls the driver and runs the license and finds out it's been suspended or revoked.

If you enjoyed reading about "In support of a National FOID (Firearms Owner Identification Card)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!