Should we have personal interviews, references, training, etc, for gun licenses?
- Thread starter Warp
- Start date
- Status
Coyote3855
Member
No. See Second Amendment. Bad guys and idiots will carry regardless of requirements to obtain a permit.
I did read the referenced post.
I did read the referenced post.
Why do I need their permission to exercise my rights?
Here in CO if you are served with a restraining order you have to remove all firearms from your house. This happened to a roommate of mine that was falsely accused of stalking and harassment by another roommate that wasn't paying rent. The case was thrown out and he got his gun back. But for a while it was touch and go.
My brother did federal probation for dui. During that year he was not allowed to have possession of any firearms. Nor was he allowed to have access to firearms. Despite this his PO kept trying to take him duck hunting... My brother politely declined. He did his year, went to his classes and did his tests and got his firearms back. He's not been in trouble since. This was nearly 10 years ago.
So there are all manner of thing in place that removes a person's rights when the commit certain crimes.
Here in CO if you are served with a restraining order you have to remove all firearms from your house. This happened to a roommate of mine that was falsely accused of stalking and harassment by another roommate that wasn't paying rent. The case was thrown out and he got his gun back. But for a while it was touch and go.
My brother did federal probation for dui. During that year he was not allowed to have possession of any firearms. Nor was he allowed to have access to firearms. Despite this his PO kept trying to take him duck hunting... My brother politely declined. He did his year, went to his classes and did his tests and got his firearms back. He's not been in trouble since. This was nearly 10 years ago.
So there are all manner of thing in place that removes a person's rights when the commit certain crimes.
Last edited:
45_auto
Member
I don't see any problem as long as I'm the one in control and I can apply the same restrictions to freedom of speech and religion.
SleazyRider
Member
That is what we've had in New York State for years, all of which I've had to go through to get my CCW. I oftentimes wondered what would happen if handguns were available and sold at local supermarket to those over 18, as some of us advocate. No permits, no background check, no registration. Just like cigarettes.
Another idea for consideration: If one undergoes an interview, background check, fingerprinting, et cetera, why not deputize said individual with the same powers as a LEO, including carrying a weapon?
Another idea for consideration: If one undergoes an interview, background check, fingerprinting, et cetera, why not deputize said individual with the same powers as a LEO, including carrying a weapon?
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
No that is up to the individual to do.
NO
That is a separate topic.
If you have behaved badly enough to have a protective order issued, you need to be held accountable for your actions, and given due process.
1911 guy
Member
Sure, right after they make everyone show an ID to vote. Oh, wait. They're against voter ID? Then I'm against restrictions on me carrying a handgun without jumping through hoops.
Notice how government (both parties, not just one or the other) likes to propose restrictions on things they don't like, but will refuse to even enforce existing law on other things they find to their advantage?
Notice how government (both parties, not just one or the other) likes to propose restrictions on things they don't like, but will refuse to even enforce existing law on other things they find to their advantage?
You know, that's pretty much the way it was in the not-so-distant past.
Sure -- why not? I believe the standards to exercise ANY of our rights should be equally vetted. That's why we should be EQUALLY certified to vote, too. And EQUALLY certified to get married and procreate. And EQUALLY certified to run for office.
And, because we have to be EQUALLY considered, that is exactly the standard we have now. Equal rights under the law. In fact, we have created the most fair system of exercising our rights on the face of earth in history.
What some don't understand is that we even have the right to make stupid decisions. Where those affect others, we already have laws to prevent damage, become aware of them or not. But, because we cannot and will not practice rights by what might happen - thru prior restraint - we are then forced to live with the results.
You cannot restrict someone's freedom because you think they might do the wrong thing. All you can do is live with them in this country, and try not to make a poor decision yourself. And considering the number of tickets handed out for collisions, speeding, and drunk driving, it's a work in process. Add the divorce rate - which is really stupid considering the lax morality we have now, geez, if you need to take a test drive nobody cares - yet we still have 75% of couples not staying the course. Apparently we aren't capable of sticking to our word.
That's the real problem, weasel around it all we want, we aren't the society that suffered thru the Great Depression, fought the Great War, or built the America we fondly remember.
We are their spoiled brats more interested in image than substance. So, sure, I'd like to apply for licenses that certify I am more capable, have better decision making, higher ethics, and enjoy more privileges than the average citizen. And while we are at it, I'd like a ring to wear symbolizing that, and some token of respect to acknowledge who I am.
So, if we want to turn this country into an even more socialist state with a weird mix of North Korean country western urbanized Coastal palm greasing, sure.
Who do I bribe? I don't need another CCW, that already cost me $250. I pay property tax, which means I can vote (with some honesty about what I am doing with MY money,) that costs about $1,800 a year. I had to pay $900 in income tax this, year, too, and I already served in the military, so I get that discount. In my current paycheck, too. Prior service are discriminated against.
What's left? And, where's my ring? Oops, found it in the pages of the American Legion magazine, just $59.99 in equal monthly payments over time. Ok.
I'm all set. If you aren't, well, that's your problem. Quit being the qualification police, I'm already paying thousands a year for the privilege. Funny, I don't feel like I'm getting treated any different than anyone else, tho.
That's the downside - " IF WE ARE ALL SUPERS, THEN, NOBODY IS." I don't see any improvement in restricting our rights even more - unless the real agenda is to just restrict our rights.
Bad agenda. Many of us swore an oath, and it included defending the Constitution from ALL enemies, foreign OR domestic. And a lot of us see the latter as the real threat.
And, because we have to be EQUALLY considered, that is exactly the standard we have now. Equal rights under the law. In fact, we have created the most fair system of exercising our rights on the face of earth in history.
What some don't understand is that we even have the right to make stupid decisions. Where those affect others, we already have laws to prevent damage, become aware of them or not. But, because we cannot and will not practice rights by what might happen - thru prior restraint - we are then forced to live with the results.
You cannot restrict someone's freedom because you think they might do the wrong thing. All you can do is live with them in this country, and try not to make a poor decision yourself. And considering the number of tickets handed out for collisions, speeding, and drunk driving, it's a work in process. Add the divorce rate - which is really stupid considering the lax morality we have now, geez, if you need to take a test drive nobody cares - yet we still have 75% of couples not staying the course. Apparently we aren't capable of sticking to our word.
That's the real problem, weasel around it all we want, we aren't the society that suffered thru the Great Depression, fought the Great War, or built the America we fondly remember.
We are their spoiled brats more interested in image than substance. So, sure, I'd like to apply for licenses that certify I am more capable, have better decision making, higher ethics, and enjoy more privileges than the average citizen. And while we are at it, I'd like a ring to wear symbolizing that, and some token of respect to acknowledge who I am.
So, if we want to turn this country into an even more socialist state with a weird mix of North Korean country western urbanized Coastal palm greasing, sure.
Who do I bribe? I don't need another CCW, that already cost me $250. I pay property tax, which means I can vote (with some honesty about what I am doing with MY money,) that costs about $1,800 a year. I had to pay $900 in income tax this, year, too, and I already served in the military, so I get that discount. In my current paycheck, too. Prior service are discriminated against.
What's left? And, where's my ring? Oops, found it in the pages of the American Legion magazine, just $59.99 in equal monthly payments over time. Ok.
I'm all set. If you aren't, well, that's your problem. Quit being the qualification police, I'm already paying thousands a year for the privilege. Funny, I don't feel like I'm getting treated any different than anyone else, tho.
That's the downside - " IF WE ARE ALL SUPERS, THEN, NOBODY IS." I don't see any improvement in restricting our rights even more - unless the real agenda is to just restrict our rights.
Bad agenda. Many of us swore an oath, and it included defending the Constitution from ALL enemies, foreign OR domestic. And a lot of us see the latter as the real threat.
New Jersey already requires references (including references from your employer in some towns!), fingerprints, $75 in fees, 2 to 6 month wait, intrusive and invasive background and mental health checks to get a gun license in order to buy a pellet gun.
We want that throughout the U.S. ? Hell No!
.
Ed Ames
Member
People who argue for interviews, references, mandatory training, and so on are generally not considering a few points:
1) Any approval process means there will be an approver who can be harmed (reputation, loss of job, et cetera) when an individual they have approved later demonstrates behavior which can be questioned. The more personal judgment is required (e.g. interviews, questioning references, etc. vs. objective "can you score 70% on this test?", or, "are you human?"), the more risk of second guessing. Every category of person commits crimes. There is no pre-examination that can reliably identify a group of live humans with zero chance of comitting crimes. That means if you pay people to make subjective judgments to approve licenses, they will deny those licenses unless there is a strong overriding factor (political donations, family connections, etc).
2) The standards for approval will not be under your control, and will be based on the politics of the person/people hiring (and firing, see item 1 about approvers being harmed) the approvers. You may consider yourself to be a person of good character, able to pass an interview and provide excellent references, but your interviewer may decide that one of his questions will be, "have you ever owned any magnum firearm?", and that an affirmative answer indicates you are bloodthirsty.
3) The more personal time is required before issuing a license, the more expensive that license will be to attain and maintain.
All of which ignores the whole prior restraint and licensing of a civil right side of things and focuses on just the practical reasons why if you think you want interviews et cetera for gun licensing you haven't thought it through.
1) Any approval process means there will be an approver who can be harmed (reputation, loss of job, et cetera) when an individual they have approved later demonstrates behavior which can be questioned. The more personal judgment is required (e.g. interviews, questioning references, etc. vs. objective "can you score 70% on this test?", or, "are you human?"), the more risk of second guessing. Every category of person commits crimes. There is no pre-examination that can reliably identify a group of live humans with zero chance of comitting crimes. That means if you pay people to make subjective judgments to approve licenses, they will deny those licenses unless there is a strong overriding factor (political donations, family connections, etc).
2) The standards for approval will not be under your control, and will be based on the politics of the person/people hiring (and firing, see item 1 about approvers being harmed) the approvers. You may consider yourself to be a person of good character, able to pass an interview and provide excellent references, but your interviewer may decide that one of his questions will be, "have you ever owned any magnum firearm?", and that an affirmative answer indicates you are bloodthirsty.
3) The more personal time is required before issuing a license, the more expensive that license will be to attain and maintain.
All of which ignores the whole prior restraint and licensing of a civil right side of things and focuses on just the practical reasons why if you think you want interviews et cetera for gun licensing you haven't thought it through.
Forcing people to jump thru a bunch of bureaucratic hoops to get the government's permission to exercise 2nd amendment rights would be just another example of the government thinking they know what is best. We have far too much of that thinking in government and the electorate in general.
Radagast
Member
I want live fire..
I recall one poster on Glock talk who bought a Glock 23 and was promptly robbed at his convenience store job that weekend. He expended his entire magazine for two hits on three bad guys, the last three rounds in the magazine making the difference.
If he was restricted to ten rounds, he would be dead.
If he had waited for 'live fire training' he would be dead.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the US Constitution states:
[The Congress shall have Power] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Live fire training for all able bodied men may be mandated as a school subject, a weekend community project, or by conscription.
If the Congress will not implement laws for this under its enumerated powers, then pushing for them to implement a similar law as a barrier to the exercise of an enumerated right is not only stupid, it is suicidal. The govt. is not acting in good faith if it does so.
I recall one poster on Glock talk who bought a Glock 23 and was promptly robbed at his convenience store job that weekend. He expended his entire magazine for two hits on three bad guys, the last three rounds in the magazine making the difference.
If he was restricted to ten rounds, he would be dead.
If he had waited for 'live fire training' he would be dead.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the US Constitution states:
[The Congress shall have Power] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Live fire training for all able bodied men may be mandated as a school subject, a weekend community project, or by conscription.
If the Congress will not implement laws for this under its enumerated powers, then pushing for them to implement a similar law as a barrier to the exercise of an enumerated right is not only stupid, it is suicidal. The govt. is not acting in good faith if it does so.
plmitch
Member
Yes, it would be an improvement......
you've got two schools of thought here...
1. cause: growing up with guns, effect: safe society
our ancestors grew up around guns and had easy access to them and learned to use them safely, viewed them as tools and not magic devices that turned them into rambo and as a result, had few problems (other than cleaning related accidents). modern society has grown up without and has problems. if we returned to the way it used to be, the next generation would think guns are no big deal.
vs
2. cause: society changed, effect: guns are no longer acceptable
reasons for societal change are alternately attributed to demographics around rural to city moves and population density, immigration, industrial and technical revolutions, social programs, chronic poor parenting, poor education, video games and hollywood, decline of religion, etc. but regardless of reason, people have abdicated responsibility to institutions and should be assumed to lack character and not be trusted with anything dangerous unless they prove they are a good person by submitting to everyone else's restrictions.
personally, I hold with those who favor 1. As a result, I think the "problem" is a temporary lack of familiarity and culture, fairly easily remedied by education and mentoring. And thus, the only restrictions I find reasonable are those addressing this temporary problem.
I find a lot of people who like guns but who favor 2. They generally think they are the ONLY responsible person around. They tend to dream up requirements that only they would pass. They are not comfortable with anyone else exercising their rights. And this belief extends far beyond guns to everything from Home Owner Associations to the "well my dog is just being friendly but everybody else's dog needs to be on a leash" mentality.
1. cause: growing up with guns, effect: safe society
our ancestors grew up around guns and had easy access to them and learned to use them safely, viewed them as tools and not magic devices that turned them into rambo and as a result, had few problems (other than cleaning related accidents). modern society has grown up without and has problems. if we returned to the way it used to be, the next generation would think guns are no big deal.
vs
2. cause: society changed, effect: guns are no longer acceptable
reasons for societal change are alternately attributed to demographics around rural to city moves and population density, immigration, industrial and technical revolutions, social programs, chronic poor parenting, poor education, video games and hollywood, decline of religion, etc. but regardless of reason, people have abdicated responsibility to institutions and should be assumed to lack character and not be trusted with anything dangerous unless they prove they are a good person by submitting to everyone else's restrictions.
personally, I hold with those who favor 1. As a result, I think the "problem" is a temporary lack of familiarity and culture, fairly easily remedied by education and mentoring. And thus, the only restrictions I find reasonable are those addressing this temporary problem.
I find a lot of people who like guns but who favor 2. They generally think they are the ONLY responsible person around. They tend to dream up requirements that only they would pass. They are not comfortable with anyone else exercising their rights. And this belief extends far beyond guns to everything from Home Owner Associations to the "well my dog is just being friendly but everybody else's dog needs to be on a leash" mentality.
Radagast
Member
An accuracy minimum....
How do you define this? Who do you trust to define this? I can guarantee it will be used to mandate a level greater than that required by police. The one thing I have learned from the last 27 years of observing the gun rights vs gun control movement is that the gun control movement never negotiates in good faith. See their attempt to co-opt the 2nd amendment foundation during the post Sandy Hook push for a semi auto ban.
The man I mentioned in the above post had never fired his gun. He was woeful, but hit no bystanders ( I believed he murdered a number of cans of Pringles) and saved his life.
I was a fairly successful IPSC shooter. I was selected to shoot for my country. I beat the equivalent of the Deputy Director of the FBI for that place. Using a Glock 17 I could hit targets out to 100m. The one time I tried to shoot a match with a S&W revolver I had misses at 2 yards on a swinging target. So, do I get a pass, or a fail, or a bureaucrat stating I can only defend my life with a full size Glock?
Firing a gun in self defense means your life is on the line, otherwise you are not going to try to take a life. At that point the minor risk of injury to a bystander is the lesser evil of risk of your own death. For this reason I would not mandate accuracy requirements.
How do you define this? Who do you trust to define this? I can guarantee it will be used to mandate a level greater than that required by police. The one thing I have learned from the last 27 years of observing the gun rights vs gun control movement is that the gun control movement never negotiates in good faith. See their attempt to co-opt the 2nd amendment foundation during the post Sandy Hook push for a semi auto ban.
The man I mentioned in the above post had never fired his gun. He was woeful, but hit no bystanders ( I believed he murdered a number of cans of Pringles) and saved his life.
I was a fairly successful IPSC shooter. I was selected to shoot for my country. I beat the equivalent of the Deputy Director of the FBI for that place. Using a Glock 17 I could hit targets out to 100m. The one time I tried to shoot a match with a S&W revolver I had misses at 2 yards on a swinging target. So, do I get a pass, or a fail, or a bureaucrat stating I can only defend my life with a full size Glock?
Firing a gun in self defense means your life is on the line, otherwise you are not going to try to take a life. At that point the minor risk of injury to a bystander is the lesser evil of risk of your own death. For this reason I would not mandate accuracy requirements.
Last edited:
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
Regarding Gatekeepers and Free Societies:
When it comes to the suppression of the exercise of fundamental rights, the burden of justification is clearly on the party proposing the suppression of the right, and never on the party exercising the right.
Doing anything else begs for abuse, and creating an entire bureaucracy around any process by which the citizen begs leave to implement his rights creates all sorts of perversity, which inevitably provides the means of despotism both petty and major.
When it comes to the suppression of the exercise of fundamental rights, the burden of justification is clearly on the party proposing the suppression of the right, and never on the party exercising the right.
Doing anything else begs for abuse, and creating an entire bureaucracy around any process by which the citizen begs leave to implement his rights creates all sorts of perversity, which inevitably provides the means of despotism both petty and major.
Radagast
Member
knowledge of self defense laws and castle doctrine in your home state..
Laws on self defense are all variants of the common law right to act in self preservation. All require a basis of Sound mind, reasonable man, or similar.
The sane shooter will act in that fashion anyway. To take a mans life, except in the gravest extreme, is the act of the insane. Again, the criminally insane will set in wait for burglars, bait traps and learn the all the minutiae of the law so they can 'hunt men' and get away with it. Requiring them to learn the laws like a lawyer simply empowers them. For the rest, it is not needed.
Laws on self defense are all variants of the common law right to act in self preservation. All require a basis of Sound mind, reasonable man, or similar.
The sane shooter will act in that fashion anyway. To take a mans life, except in the gravest extreme, is the act of the insane. Again, the criminally insane will set in wait for burglars, bait traps and learn the all the minutiae of the law so they can 'hunt men' and get away with it. Requiring them to learn the laws like a lawyer simply empowers them. For the rest, it is not needed.
Radagast
Member
I want personal interviews...
Why? That is subjective. You are then relying on the person giving the interview to be sane, honest, with rational thought processes and an ability to read the mind of the person in front of them.
The fact that a defense lawyer can find a 'mental health professional' to claim their murdering client is insane and therefore should not be executed, while the prosecutor can find an equally qualified govt. certified witch doctor to state they are sane, shows how subjective and outright corrupt such evaluations can be.
Objective data, such as criminal convictions, adjudicated insanity or incompetence could be argued as a basis for restricting rights, they always have. But 'personal interview' = I'm prejudiced and I want the ability to weed out those I am prejudiced against.
Why? That is subjective. You are then relying on the person giving the interview to be sane, honest, with rational thought processes and an ability to read the mind of the person in front of them.
The fact that a defense lawyer can find a 'mental health professional' to claim their murdering client is insane and therefore should not be executed, while the prosecutor can find an equally qualified govt. certified witch doctor to state they are sane, shows how subjective and outright corrupt such evaluations can be.
Objective data, such as criminal convictions, adjudicated insanity or incompetence could be argued as a basis for restricting rights, they always have. But 'personal interview' = I'm prejudiced and I want the ability to weed out those I am prejudiced against.
Radagast
Member
references..
Gangs always have someone clean to launder their guns & money. They will be able to launder references.
On the other hand, I'll give you a straw man argument.
A domineering man moves his family out of state to cut his wife off from her family.
He becomes antagonistic, keeps her at home through threats, does not allow her to form a new social group.
Then he becomes violent, threatens to kill her if she leaves. She runs to a shelter.
Should she be allowed to buy a gun, or should she be required to give references?
Gangs always have someone clean to launder their guns & money. They will be able to launder references.
On the other hand, I'll give you a straw man argument.
A domineering man moves his family out of state to cut his wife off from her family.
He becomes antagonistic, keeps her at home through threats, does not allow her to form a new social group.
Then he becomes violent, threatens to kill her if she leaves. She runs to a shelter.
Should she be allowed to buy a gun, or should she be required to give references?
Radagast
Member
fingerprints...
What is the backlog of matching cold case fingerprints and DNA to newly taken specimens. For that matter how many cases of old finger prints being used to solve new crimes are there? We hear more about DNA matches being used. Even then crime labs have repeatedly been shown to falsify evidence.
basically the requirement to take fingerprints is a scare tactic, nothing more, an attempt to make bad guys not apply. As bad guys get their firearms through illegal channels, this is simply another obstruction of an enumerated right, along with an assumption of guilt and a search without probable cause.
It should be abhorrent to any liberty minded person.
What is the backlog of matching cold case fingerprints and DNA to newly taken specimens. For that matter how many cases of old finger prints being used to solve new crimes are there? We hear more about DNA matches being used. Even then crime labs have repeatedly been shown to falsify evidence.
basically the requirement to take fingerprints is a scare tactic, nothing more, an attempt to make bad guys not apply. As bad guys get their firearms through illegal channels, this is simply another obstruction of an enumerated right, along with an assumption of guilt and a search without probable cause.
It should be abhorrent to any liberty minded person.
Pointshoot
Member
The only way the 2A will be lost, is if the American gunowner goes along with it.
Every tactic, every proposal of the antis, has the purpose of fooling the American gunowner into surrendering his own rights. The ultimate objective is to disarm the American people.
'They' cannot take away those rights; only you can give them up.
Think about this (and the consequences & responsibility it entails) . . . and you'll see that this is true.
Just one recent example to illustrate: After SandyHook there were numerous proposals and counter proposals on 'what to do'. Your odds of being the victim of a mass shooting are less than being struck by lightning, (just look up the 10 year stats). Yet, some people were open to agreeing to all sorts of 'compromises' in reaction to the antis.
Wake up boys, you're being played. And, its up to you to Think and not fall for it.
Every tactic, every proposal of the antis, has the purpose of fooling the American gunowner into surrendering his own rights. The ultimate objective is to disarm the American people.
'They' cannot take away those rights; only you can give them up.
Think about this (and the consequences & responsibility it entails) . . . and you'll see that this is true.
Just one recent example to illustrate: After SandyHook there were numerous proposals and counter proposals on 'what to do'. Your odds of being the victim of a mass shooting are less than being struck by lightning, (just look up the 10 year stats). Yet, some people were open to agreeing to all sorts of 'compromises' in reaction to the antis.
Wake up boys, you're being played. And, its up to you to Think and not fall for it.
Radagast
Member
background checks....
I'm pretty sure the Federally funded purchasers of firearms in Operation Fast & Furious didn't pass background checks.
IIRC it was the Wright & Rossi report in the 80s (Not going to look it up, its after midnight here) that found nearly 100% of crime guns were stolen or illegally traded. Even the Sandy Hook perp. stole his gun.
So again, its a feel good issue and a means of creating a data base for future confiscation.
Logistically there are as many guns as people in the USA. The trade in guns can be stifled somewhat, but not stopped.
Within ten years it will be possible for any high schooler with access to the workshop, or any home hobbyist, to 3D print any firearms.
The days of controlling firearms through controlling the distribution channels are almost over.
As for confiscating guns from violent men, how about violent women? IIRC the last 'school shooting' I heard of was a woman shooting up a faculty meeting.
I'm pretty sure the Federally funded purchasers of firearms in Operation Fast & Furious didn't pass background checks.
IIRC it was the Wright & Rossi report in the 80s (Not going to look it up, its after midnight here) that found nearly 100% of crime guns were stolen or illegally traded. Even the Sandy Hook perp. stole his gun.
So again, its a feel good issue and a means of creating a data base for future confiscation.
Logistically there are as many guns as people in the USA. The trade in guns can be stifled somewhat, but not stopped.
Within ten years it will be possible for any high schooler with access to the workshop, or any home hobbyist, to 3D print any firearms.
The days of controlling firearms through controlling the distribution channels are almost over.
As for confiscating guns from violent men, how about violent women? IIRC the last 'school shooting' I heard of was a woman shooting up a faculty meeting.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
