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:
USSR said:
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.
Art Eatman said:
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.
daggertt said:
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.
sonick808 and alsaqr said:
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.
legaleagle_45 said:
I would prefer a notation on normal identification documents, such as a drivers license which identifies persons who may not purchase firearms
We have something like that in Alaska for people prohibited from buying alcohol after multiple DUIs
VVelox said:
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.
Texan Scott said:
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