For your consideration
- Thread starter DammitBoy
- Start date
- Status
I'll pass on the proposal. In addition to some of the objections already raised, it would require the federal government to set national standards for the issuance of the ID card and the safety course. I suspect that these "national standards" would be significantly stricter than those set by our more gun-friendly states.
22-rimfire
Member
Sounds like something that might be done as part of a national gun registry. No card. No guns... These things can be changed at any time. It makes no difference what you are told when a new law is passed.
I would say that this is an attempt at being "reasonable". I see no reason at this point to be reasonable. I doubt they would drop the NICs check or silencer item and I'm surprised that states allow purchase of firearms these days because you have a CCW permit.
I will agree to a national ID card if they send me a monthly $500 check. Forget the gun part.
I would say that this is an attempt at being "reasonable". I see no reason at this point to be reasonable. I doubt they would drop the NICs check or silencer item and I'm surprised that states allow purchase of firearms these days because you have a CCW permit.
I will agree to a national ID card if they send me a monthly $500 check. Forget the gun part.
DammitBoy
Member
Very interesting points and I'm really enjoying reading everyone's responses. The one thought that keeps popping up in my head regarding comments about the Card vs Rights issue - how do you feel about a voter ID card?
I support voter ID cards - voting is a right. So how is a Gun Permit ID card different? I agree, it should be a shall issue card if one were to be done.
I also think it's meant to replace individual states cards, but could you do it like driver's licenses?
The violent felony suggestion, also a great catch!
I support voter ID cards - voting is a right. So how is a Gun Permit ID card different? I agree, it should be a shall issue card if one were to be done.
I also think it's meant to replace individual states cards, but could you do it like driver's licenses?
The violent felony suggestion, also a great catch!
Texan Scott
Member
Voter ID law would be enacted at the State, not Federal, level and enforced at the local precinct, whose concern is that I live (and so vote) at that polling place.
I am affirming a right, not being granted one. If there were any question, they are required to have mechanism for remediation on site.
At NO point would the feds be asked if a Texan has their permission to vote. THAT'S the difference.
I am affirming a right, not being granted one. If there were any question, they are required to have mechanism for remediation on site.
At NO point would the feds be asked if a Texan has their permission to vote. THAT'S the difference.
DammitBoy
Member
Good point Tex, voter ID cards affirm a right, they do not grant a right. Same thing with a shall issue gun permit card, it affirms a right.
Texan Scott
Member
Not quite. While both a voter ID and a shall-issue CHL affirm my rights as a citizen, my voting rights are not contingent upon my completion of government mandated education; the burden of renewing it falls on the government, not the citizen; and the right cannot be denied for failure to pay a fee or fees (amount subject to increase at a later date).
r1derbike
Member
Absolutely not. A national ID card precludes any proposals below it. We already have our 2nd amendment right to guarantee our ownership, and laws (which are not enforced) which are supposed to regulate the industry.
Problem is, criminals don't obey laws. Who knew?
This proposed ID card could be collected at a future date by tyrannical factions of government, along with the national registered firearms it would surely require, and disarm law-abiding citizens, to be preyed upon by criminals with firearms, as they may get weapons to use against citizens by black market.
No can do. Bad idea.
Problem is, criminals don't obey laws. Who knew?
This proposed ID card could be collected at a future date by tyrannical factions of government, along with the national registered firearms it would surely require, and disarm law-abiding citizens, to be preyed upon by criminals with firearms, as they may get weapons to use against citizens by black market.
No can do. Bad idea.
9MMare
Member
Interesting thread and I dont mean my reply as a 'pile on'.
The less govt involved in my 2A rights, the better. Why all that regulation? It seems to imply we need some kind of leverage or assurances to *receive* such govt largesse.
Nah uh.
And I object to #10....teach your own kid about gun safety and police/store your weapons at home and in vehicles accordingly.
Now if #10 was to go towards 2A and gun education in public schools, I'd reconsider
Heh, and yes folks, I am a Democrat
The less govt involved in my 2A rights, the better. Why all that regulation? It seems to imply we need some kind of leverage or assurances to *receive* such govt largesse.
Nah uh.
And I object to #10....teach your own kid about gun safety and police/store your weapons at home and in vehicles accordingly.
Now if #10 was to go towards 2A and gun education in public schools, I'd reconsider
Heh, and yes folks, I am a Democrat
9MMare
Member
Er, arent voter ID cards use to identify voters at the poll? Dont they perform an actual function directly related to exercising that right? Or enabling it?
And they are becoming less and less necessary with so many states going to mail in voting. I no longer even need a voter registration card here. Altho I see the benefit in the state sending confirmation to a newly registered/relocated voter so that they know they are indeed on the rolls.
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
Please explain how the initial proposal would require registration of firearms.
Sent using Tapatalk 2
oneounceload
member
Exactly - then you give up local control at your state level to a central gov't authority that changes its mind depending on which way the campaign money flows
NO THANK YOU
Why do you limit the ability to own a gun to only US citizens? There are plenty of foreign residents who are not a threat but law-abiding business and home owners - why are they excluded?
You can already possess a gun in US waters
It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children, now you want some government group to do so? Use the NRA Eddie Eagle program then
You are also abdicating State's Rights and authority to a higher central government with the carry anywhere not prohibited by Federal law - those who want tight controls will merely push to have the federal law mirror their requirements, thus making many places allowed in other states off limits
WAY too much potential for abuse and destruction of the RKBA; again NO THANK YOU
Transporting guns using standard safety shipping procedures? What is that? - no loaded gun in the driver's reach? So much for protection against car jacking or road rage
Last edited:
DammitBoy
Member
Good point on foreign residents who are here legally.
There are plenty of restrictions on possessing a firearm in US waters that would be removed by the proposal.
There are states that have laws stopping you from carrying a loaded gun in your vehicle already. This proposal would remove that restriction in those states. I read transporting for shipping as exactly that - firearms you wish to ship - not your concealed or open carry personal firearm?
I agree that a more aggressive government might want to further restrict firearm ownership in the future. The proposal seems to cover that with the 2/3 vote in the house and senate, doesn't it?
Still not sure how I am going to respond at the other forum... I'm reading plenty of criticisms - some of them constructive, but not much advice on how to further a positive discussion...
DammitBoy
Member
And yet the Government does regulate all three.
Why do you think that is and how do you suggest stopping them from further regulation or even removing existing regulations that infringe upon our rights?
oneounceload
member
All of those points made sound, at least to me, like another "let's compromise". Why is it always the gun owner's who have to compromise? (That would be a starting point for your discussion)
Gun laws do NOTHING to prevent crime (there's another point for your discussion) as criminals are by definition, not going to follow the laws
Nationalizing ANYTHING has ALWAYS failed - there has never been one good Central Fed program involving daily living that has truly worked as designed, especially going back to FDR. Your discussion is really getting down, not to gun rights, but States' rights. What works the folks in NY is not the same as what works for the folks in Florida, etc., and they should determine what will work best in their own state, NOT some central Fed bureaucracy which constantly tries to hammer a round peg in a square hole. There is no "one size fits all" solution in a country with 50 states and as many different cultures as we have - it NEEDS to be done at the State level. That way there is less of a chance of getting an administration that can revoke it all with one "executive order" (another point for your discussion
Good luck with it
beatledog7
Member
Voter ID cards are state-issued, not Federal.
Almost nothing ever instituted at the Federal level has ever worked. So, constitutionality aside for the moment, why would we want the Feds to run anything?
Almost nothing ever instituted at the Federal level has ever worked. So, constitutionality aside for the moment, why would we want the Feds to run anything?
DammitBoy
Member
I bought two pistols this weekend. Both involved an instant federal background check. The system worked just fine.
For some reason, I cannot do this in any other state in the union. That is just plain stupid. States should not be able to restrict my legal right to buy/own a legal product.
larryh1108
Member
I agree, DB.
People cry how there is no way they want Big Brother telling them what to do yet they go and get their permit to carry, or whatever, and believe they aren't on anybody's radar. Really? They know where you live and that you (more than likely) own firearms. If you buy a gun they run an NICS check on you. Maybe they destroy these records (cough) and maybe they just keep tracks of the number of hits your file gets but I do not believe, for even one second, that these records are erased, destroyed or not kept in a place for further use, if needed. If you have a permit from your home state, if you gave your fingerprints to get a permit or if you have a FOID type of card, you are registered with a government agency. With computers we have today, especially in government agencies, you are in the system already. Anybody who thinks they have a permit but are invisible are fooling themselves. Really? You don't want the government to know your business? Then turn in your permits and disappear. Otherwise, you are already in the system and will be forever. They already know who you are and where you live. Look at your permit and see what it says. They have the same info.
People cry how there is no way they want Big Brother telling them what to do yet they go and get their permit to carry, or whatever, and believe they aren't on anybody's radar. Really? They know where you live and that you (more than likely) own firearms. If you buy a gun they run an NICS check on you. Maybe they destroy these records (cough) and maybe they just keep tracks of the number of hits your file gets but I do not believe, for even one second, that these records are erased, destroyed or not kept in a place for further use, if needed. If you have a permit from your home state, if you gave your fingerprints to get a permit or if you have a FOID type of card, you are registered with a government agency. With computers we have today, especially in government agencies, you are in the system already. Anybody who thinks they have a permit but are invisible are fooling themselves. Really? You don't want the government to know your business? Then turn in your permits and disappear. Otherwise, you are already in the system and will be forever. They already know who you are and where you live. Look at your permit and see what it says. They have the same info.
Impureclient
Member
^This
oneounceload
member
But currently, they do not have the right or ability to tell your governor what he can do regarding firearms in his/her state - and you want them to have that ability? You sound like you must be too young to remember back before the latest, "I'm from the federal Gov't and I am here to help you", or the "let us take care of you" mantras
That isn't a state issue depriving you, it is the same Fed gov't you want to give even more control to....... really??
That isn't a state issue depriving you, it is the same Fed gov't you want to give even more control to....... really??
oneounceload
member
You seem too young to remember the gas crunches in the 70's - the feds made a national one-size fits all rule - 55mph or no highway funds - so states like Montana, Nevada, Wyoming - with low populations and MILES between towns were forced to comply even though it made no sense for them (there's that one size fits all mentality of a central gov't); just what do you think will happen with this? NYC and Chicago will dictate the rules for CCW nationwide, not Tx or Fl. I can see it now - your National ID card will now cost you $2500 per year, you cannot carry with a round in the chamber; you won't be able to carry in ANY place where more than 10 people can congregate, including your own home at a party, and on and on........it was the Fed who put a stop to easily owning full auto guns, it was the Fed who put a stop to you ordering a gun from the back of a magazine and having it delivered to your door, it was the Fed that instituted the 4473, it was the Fed who says a NICS background check is mandatory
They have taken away more of your freedoms and you want to hand them even greater control?
NO THANK YOU
They have taken away more of your freedoms and you want to hand them even greater control?
NO THANK YOU
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
Did fuel efficiency at speeds above 55 magically change because of the lower population or distance between towns?
Why would it be based on the outliers of NYC and Chicago when the vast majority of the country has more lenient rules than they do?
Have you even read the contents of the proposal? Number 3 directly contradicts your point regarding the NICS, and 4 talks about enabling delivery and shipping.
DammitBoy
Member
You seem to assume a lot. I'm 53 years old and I do not trust our federal government. I have some issues with the proposal posted at the other forum. What I do like about it, is it put more restrictions on the federal government and removes restrictions on gun owners.
What do you think would improve the wording of the proposal or are you just too old to think positively?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
