Gun Owners Should Have Licenses

Status
Not open for further replies.

dubious

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2007
Messages
442
Got your attention? That's an argument that was posed to me about a week ago by a good and reasonable friend. I'll tell you his point without injecting my own pro-gun response. This is encapsulated and not verbatim:

People should have to pass a test similar to the Driver's Exam and be checked out by some basic training course before they can own a gun. Other countries may have widespread gun ownership, like Israel and Switzerland, but most of those gun owners have undergone mandatory military training. Open gun ownership is a holdover from the cowboy settler days and is no longer as relevant. The bill of rights is open to further amendment.

Obviously I can think of many counter arguments here, but I would like to hear what you have to say.
 
I would propose this idea to him - How about we have a mandatory course in public school on firearm safety and use? That seems to meet the training requirement, although not as in-depth. As for the amending, there's a process for that. Until that time, we still have the 2A as written.
 
Licensing isn't necessary - and wouldn't be even if they repealed the 2nd Amendment. Most people would take training courses if they were offered for free. Perhaps this would be a more efficient means of enhancing gun safety than all of the money spent on restricting freedoms.
 
fletcher said:
I would propose this idea to him - How about we have a mandatory course in public school on firearm safety and use? That seems to meet the training requirement, although not as in-depth.
+1. This should be common sense - loop it in with other "safety" education like that on drugs, sex, and alcohol.
 
Not sure this belongs in activism, but here's my 2 cents.

ask him to explain how such a supposed holdover from the cowboy settler days is any less relevant today than it was a hundred thirty years ago. There are many more bad people out there today than there were then. I'd argue that a gun is more necessary today than it was then. As for taking a driver's exam, well, I think that firearm safety and basic marksmanship should be mandatory courses in public school; but there should be no licensing requirement. You don't need a license to own a car, why should you need one to own a gun?
 
Actually, that would not bother me, but we need to do it to alot more then just guns... several power tools come to mind.
 
My argument against that has always been that using a gun is much simpler then using a car, and secondly, and more importantly, driving requires quite a bit of training because everybody has to be on the same page as far as who should be where, who’s turn is it to go, proper way to change lanes, etc. No such coordination is required by the gun-owning public.
 
I would not consider someone who thinks like that to be a friend of mine.

I would remind him it's the Bill of RIGHTS.

Driving is NOT a right. Owning a weapon IS a right. There's America 101 in a nutshell.
 
And the flip side is that driver license requirements don't seem to be too effective at assuring that folks behind the steering wheels are qualified. Just think about how many lousy drivers you meet on the road every day. And consider the carnage on our highways. Even with all the regulation of driving -- licensing, traffic cops behind every third billboard, jail time for DUI, etc -- shooters cause a whole lot less damage than drivers.
 
remind your "friend" that you only need a license to drive a car if you are driving it off your own property in most states...
 
Ignoring the constitutional issue, I'd actually be fine with licensing, as long as it's done just like car licensing: a simple written test, a brief practical exam, a small fee, and then I can own and drive any car manufactured. No waiting periods, no tax stamps, no BS.
 
mekender said:
...you only need a license to drive a car if you are driving it off your own property in most states....
And in the 37 (+/-) shall issue states, one gets a license, much like a drivers license, and may then carry his gun concealed in public. So let's have no license requirement to have a gun on your property or to transport it, unloaded, to a range, or hunting area, or other location at which shooting is permitted (or carried openly in states that already permit it). And then let's have national CCW shall issue. That's basically what dubious' friend is talking about.
 
Considering the number of complete idiots I have encountered at gun ranges...maybe that's not such an absurd idea.

Well...the licensing to own is not right, but a certification / proof of proficiency and safe handling could be a good thing.

This can be a service provided by the gun dealer for a nominal fee ($15~$20 bucks) which can assist the dealer's income considering the crazy price of ammo that has reduced their income.
Safe handling, cleaning, target acquisition and controlled fire, etc.

The problem I see with this:
The proof may end up becoming a hyper-restrictive form of gun control thanks to the 95% of legislators being such panty-waists.

That said, there is no way I can support such a requirement due to the possibility that it will be used for more regulation.
That regulation will ultimately be the cause for another government body to regulate the certifications and documentation of such, and a reduction of our right to bear and be as ignorant as we want to.
We don't need more government dead weight (and the associated salaries) looking over our shoulders and a restriction of our rights is completely out of the question, so I have to say NO WAY.
I'll simply continue to educate the morons I see at the range and enjoy my right to bear!
 
yeah, thats what we need, more government beauracracy complicating gun ownership. does he know that all this would do is spend more of tax payers money on
1) another useless government agency,
2) more state or federal employee's to pay, give benifits to etc.
3) buy, build, or rent office space for them to work out of
4) add just another useless step to gun ownership
5) it would serve no real function other than collect taxes from gun owners, unless they had legal, police athourity, in which case, they would have to have degrees in criminal justice, firearms for thier own protection, handcuffs, etc. etc. meaning a larger salery, more benifits, retirement plan, etc.,etc., etc. .
basicly, all this would do is add about another $100.00 - $200.00 to the price of every gun sold. no real benefit, just extra cost. what is he thinking??? that they will stop not so intelegent or dishonest people from owning guns, or does he think that it will keep guns out of criminals hands? the criminals wont go there, they just steal he gun themself, or buy it from someone that stole it from one of the people that just went through all of this. it just amazes me how many people think that LAWSs will keep CRIMINALS from getting guns. i wonder how far their head burried in, well, i wont go there. MAYBE THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A LICENSE TO HAVE FREE SPEACH!
 
Additionally, if any amendments are proposed for additional regulation / restriction, I will lobby against it with everything I have.
 
I would propose to your friend that people should be required to pass an intelligence test in order to exercise their 1st amendment right. Then people who fail the test wouldn't be allowed to say stupid crap like:

"The bill of rights is open to further amendment"
 
People should have to pass a test similar to the Driver's Exam and be checked out by some basic training course before they can own a gun. Other countries may have widespread gun ownership, like Israel and Switzerland, but most of those gun owners have undergone mandatory military training. Open gun ownership is a holdover from the cowboy settler days and is no longer as relevant. The bill of rights is open to further amendment.

Several folks have already pointed out the difference between a Right and a privilege.

Being retired military, I could live with former military have full rights to gun ownership. But that would not allow many non veterans their Right to possess guns. And that isn't right either.

One of the very silly points many anti's make is the frontier days and Cowboys. Well most cowboys only used rifles.

More decent folks are killed today by criminals than were killed in the 'old' days by Indians and such. By their apparent logic, we would need guns MORE today rather than less.

I use that argument often to neutralize the frontier fantasy of these anti civil rights people. It sure sends them into a tail spin. Usually ends with them getting very emotional and even less logic than normal. It has gotten a couple of logical anti gunners to thinking though. And after all that is my mission. To get them thinking.

The logical anti's can often be converted with time and reason. Don't beat them up. Give them good arguments and logic. The emotional Anti's generally cannot be helped. Often that is the major problem in their own life too, that's why they are liberals.

Go figure.

Fred
 
What constitutes "training"? I would argue that once you know the 4 rules, you are set. What else do you really need to know?

Driving a car, is in fact operating a machine that is pretty complex, in a fluid environment of other variables. Gun ownership really doesn't compare. There are not speed limits and signaling for bullets eh...

The analouge would be this...

Drivers Ed = 4 rules

Performance driving = tactical training

Race car driving = IPSEC and other

So in fact, we are already where your friend is "wanting" to be... IMO
 
People should have to pass a test similar to the Driver's Exam and be checked out by some basic training course before they can own a gun.
Except driving is not a Right guaranteed by the constitution. Many people fail to realize driving is a privilege, of which you must be licensed to legally perform such actions. Owning and operating arms is my Right... no license or testing should ever be required.



Other countries may have widespread gun ownership, like Israel and Switzerland, but most of those gun owners have undergone mandatory military training.
Point being? I was no aware we were these "other countries". And if only "most" of their gun owners have had military training, then what about the "ones" who have guns without training? Should they not be allowed to have them? Logic is absent in his comment.





Open gun ownership is a holdover from the cowboy settler days and is no longer as relevant.
Ask him which period in time he refers to when talking of Cowboys and Settlers. After Columbus discovered America in 1492? Before or after being Colonized? Revolution? Civil War? Migration of immigrants West to SETTLE the plains?

My perspective of Cowboys and Settlers is way after the Revolution and Declaration of Independence, or, second quarter of the 19th century up to the Statehood of Arizona and New Mexico in 1912.

So, if gun ownership is a hold over from 'then', how is it in the Bill of Rights? It's a "hold over" from our Fore Fathers realizing the necessary rights in order for our new country to thrive. All of which are very relevant. His comments however, are no where close.


The bill of rights is open to further amendment.
This one's hard to touch. The bill of Rights is meant to declare righteous freedoms of us citizens; the people. I don't think the original drafters intended its use to allow amendments that would allow the government to declare anything a non-right. (prohibition ring a bell?). Amending the Bill of Rights to include and guarantee future rights I think is more the design of the document. (Female vote, Equal rights etc etc). An amendment to the BILL of RIGHTS to with hold a RIGHT in and of itself is an oxymoron, unconstitutional when that right is already guaranteed, and against what our Fathers declared when forming such Rights.

Amend it all they want, as long as it is to continually guarantee new rights. NEVER, to take one away!
 
Open gun ownership is a holdover from the cowboy settler days and is no longer as relevant. The bill of rights is open to further amendment.

STUPID!!!

What if that new amendment decreed that all Jews, African Americans, whites, Asians, conservatives, libertarians what ever must be deported to concentration camps? What about that? That comment is STUPID, and please tell your friend this. Cowboy settler days? Well, right now we still have evil doers in society, so you are saying now we live in some paradise dream world where lions live side by side with lambs and don't eat them right?
 
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/TreatingGunsLikeCars.htm

...

If one extended Gore's analogy between gun licenses and drivers' licenses to the proposal that guns should be generally treated like cars, it could lead to the most massive decontrol of firearms in American history. Vice President Gore's proposal seeks a high degree of administrative regulation of guns¾but a closer examination of current regulations reveals that guns are already far more regulated than cars. Laws that would really treat guns more like cars would be much less restrictive than most current gun laws, and I would welcome such a result. Let us truly treat guns like cars and sweep away most existing regulations.

The first law to go would be the 1986 federal ban on manufacture of new machine guns for sale to ordinary citizens.[6] Machine guns were banned because they fire much more rapidly than ordinary guns, and this high-speed potential was considered dangerous and unnecessary¾since no ordinary person had a need for such a high-speed gun. We do not ban cars like Porsches just because they are high-powered and can be driven much faster than the speed limit. Even though it is much easier to exceed the speed limit in a Porsche than in a Hyundai, we let people choose their cars regardless of their potential for speeding abuse. We even allow people to buy 13,000 horsepower Pratt & Whitney Jet Cars, which seem almost deliberately designed for speeding.

Likewise, we do not ban automobiles because they are underpowered, or are made with poor quality metal. Those who want a Yugo can buy one. Under this analogy, the state-level bans on inexpensive [Page 1216] guns[7] (so-called "junk guns" or "Saturday Night Specials") and federal rules against the import of cheap guns would have to go. These laws are based on the theory that consumers should not be allowed to purchase guns made from metal that melts at too low of a temperature, because such guns are not well-made enough.

Further, if we agree with Handgun Control, Inc. President Robert Walker that we need to "treat[] guns like cars,"[8] we must repeal the thousands of laws regulating the purchase of firearms and their possession on private property. The simple purchase of an automobile is subject to essentially no restrictions. When a buyer shows up at the dealer's showroom, the dealer does not conduct a background check to find out if the buyer has a conviction for vehicular homicide or drunk driving. The only "waiting period" for car purchases runs from the time of the buyer's decision to purchase to the time the salesman hands him the keys. This waiting period may last a half hour or more if the auto dealership has a great deal of paperwork, or it may be even shorter.

In contrast, several states impose a waiting period on firearms purchases of several days to several weeks.[9] Furthermore, firearms are the only product in the United States for which FBI permission, via the national background check, is required for every single retail consumer purchase.[10] Every time a person attempts to buy a gun, the gun [Page 1217] store's owner must call the FBI for permission to complete the sale. If the FBI gives permission for a gun sale on Monday and the buyer returns on Tuesday to purchase a second gun, the store must call the FBI again.

Virtually no restrictions are imposed on car owners who operate their automobiles on private property. A ranch owner whose driver's license is revoked can still drive his jeep all over the ranch without penalty. Indeed, he can drink a case of beer before driving around his ranch and still enjoy the ride knowing that he is not violating a single law,[11] provided that he does not injure an innocent person.

If we followed the analogy about treating guns like cars, we could abolish all laws concerning gun storage in the home, as well those banning gun possession by certain persons on private property. Current federal law outlaws gun possession, even on private property, by those previously convicted of a violent or nonviolent felony[12] or a misdemeanor involving domestic violence,[13] (such as two brothers having a fistfight on their front lawn thirty years ago), those dishonorably discharged from the military,[14] drug users (defined by regulation as any use in the last year),[15] illegal aliens,[16] and various other "prohibited persons."[17] Several states go even further by conditioning gun possession (or all handgun possession) on special state-issued licenses.[18] If we really treated guns like cars, all of these laws would be swept away.

Most cities do prohibit property owners from storing their cars in an unsightly manner (for example, on cinder blocks in the front [Page 1218] yard), or from parking too many cars on the public street in front of their house. Thus, gun owners will have to accept laws against leaving nonfunctional guns strewn about their front yard, and will not be allowed to leave excessive numbers of guns on the street (gun control groups frequently complain that there are "too many guns on the street").

If a person keeps a car on his own property, he can tow the car to a friend's property and drive it on that property. As long as he is merely towing the car, he needs no license and no restrictions apply. Thus, gun owners should be allowed to transport their unloaded guns to private property such as a shooting gallery for use on that property. Jurisdictions such as New York City would no longer have the power to require a separate "target permit" just to take a gun to the local pistol range.[19]

Supposing that the auto owner wants to use his car on public property, as most people do, a driver is required to be duly licensed. To obtain a license to drive a car anywhere in public, most states require that the licensee be at least fifteen or sixteen years of age, take a written safety test that requires an IQ of no more than eighty to pass, drive the car for an examiner, and demonstrate to the examiner that the driver knows how to operate the car and obey basic safety rules and traffic signs. The license will be revoked or suspended if the driver violates various safety rules or causes an accident while driving in public. Except in egregious cases, first or second offenses do not usually result in license revocations. Once the license is issued, it is good in every state.

Vice-President Gore appeared to focus on these driver's license requirements when discussing the need for handgun licensing, although he failed to recognize that such requirements only apply to cars used in public and not to those operated on private property. The licensing of guns touted by Gore is already in effect in thirty states, where adults with a clean record can obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun for lawful protection.[20] To make the concealed handgun licensing system exactly like the driver's system would re- [Page 1219] quire a few tweaks, such as reducing the minimum age for a gun license (currently twenty-one or twenty-five in most states) as well as the licensing fees, which can run over $100 in many states; mandating a written exam in those few states without one; adding a practical demonstration test (currently administered in Texas but not in most other states); and making licenses valid in all states rather than in only the issuing state. Statewide validity of gun licenses could spur the proliferation of rent-a-gun stores for travelers, similar to the current rent-a-car system.[21] In addition, the nineteen states that currently do not give handgun-carrying permits to every person with a clean record would have to change their laws.

Some jurisdictions require the carry licensee only to register either the type of handgun for which she was trained by a handgun instructor or the particular handguns she will carry.[22] The Elbert County, Colorado, sheriff does this, as do some sheriffs in other states. Under the treat-guns- like-cars rule, an owner would have to register every gun that would be carried in public and pay an annual or semiannual registration tax. Such registration would also be required for hunting or target shooting guns used on public lands. The theory of auto registration is that once the auto is driven on public streets, it acquires a certain public character and must be registered, unlike an auto that is only used on private property. The strict "treat guns like cars" analogy from Handgun Control, Inc., would therefore support registration of guns that are carried or used in public places. Of course, once a person gets a driver's license, she can drive in any area open to the public. Thus, we would have to repeal all the laws against carrying guns within a thousand feet of a school, in bars, or on government property.[23]

...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top