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

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

This is not your Illinois FOID

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The Second Amendment is also a piece of paper.

Twiki357 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Twiki357 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Twiki357 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Twiki357 said:

Part 5. I always liked fairy tales.

Click to expand...

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.)

Twiki357 said:

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?????

Click to expand...

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".

Twiki357 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

armoredman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Evergreen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Sorry about all the misunderstanding

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