Gun Owners Should Have Licenses

[jrfoxx]

I'll agree in a sense. I have no problem with required training IF it's free, and taught to everyone in all public and private schools. That way, EVERYONE gets it, and it's free. As for a license, no way. Don't need it if everyone gets the required training in school, so a license would then just be pointless, a form of registration, and something that the anti's in government would find tons of excuses to revoke.

No need for a "license" if everyone gets the same training for free in all schools. Also,anyone past the age/grade that the school trains at ye time it were instituted, is grandfathered in, no license, no testing, no nothing. That seems fair, workable, and un-abusable, and I don't feel is a burden or "hurdle" to owning guns. Then, even antis and non-gun owners would be less likely to have such irrational fears toward guns nd gun owners, as they have had some facts, training, and exposure to them.Pus, then everyone, especially kids, would know how o be safe around guns, even if they or their parents never owned one. Might make them less likely to pick up one they find, or play with dad's guns, etc since they have now been taught to know better, and have seen and understand what that kind of messing around/stupidity can result in.

Heck, they teach little kids sex ed in school (sometimes in an overly graphic manner IMHO), they teach fire safety, drug/alcohol abuse prevention, etc, so why not guns?

Might save some lives, and help make a few less people so irrational ad/or stupid about guns and gun owners.

 

[Vermont]

What if that new amendment decreed that all Jews, African Americans, whites, Asians, conservatives, libertarians what ever must be deported to concentration camps?

At that point we might have to fight to overthrow our government, but the fact is that the constitution (including the bill of rights) IS open to amendment. I don't think any senators would be stupid enough to vote for that amendment though.

 

[Soybomb]

Your friend's suggestion can be challenged easily and briefly.

First I'd note this his or her vision of the "old west" is not accurate. It wasn't a lawless land filled with guns. Most people were dirt poor and didn't have money for guns. There was gun violence in the midwest but it was largely the same as the gun violence we see today. Criminals were killing each other and fighting to show their toughness to each other.

The challenge for him is simple. We have states like alaska and vermont that allow people to not only own guns without training but to carry them without even getting training or a license. We have other states like CA where you need to take a test to buy a handgun. Can he demonstrate that the state with testing is safer than states without?

The bill of rights is open to further amendment and I welcome anyone who has issue with the existing BoR to go through the amendment process to change it. Saying "well it doesn't really mean shall not be infringed..." is dishonest.

 

[Rachen]

but the fact is that the constitution (including the bill of rights) IS open to amendment.

I think we should start lobbying to close the amending loophole in our Bill Of Rights.
If the Heller decision is in our favor, then I think the most important thing after that would be to get a vote to close that law that allows the Bill Of Rights to be amended. The Constition can be amended, such as Prohibition and the anti-Prohibition legislation that came after it, BUT THE BILL OF RIGHTS CANNOT BE TOUCHED. Otherwise, we are opening a door for our own country's destruction by potential internal political criminals.

This is a serious issue, and tell me if you are intereste in working with me to lobby the legislators in Congress to BAN that amending loophole.

 

[shdwfx]

So, you propose passing a Constitutional amendment saying the Bill of Rights can not be changed with another amendment?

The amendment process is already sufficiently stringent itself that adding an anti-amendment amendment - which could itself be reversed with another amendment - doesn't add all that much.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....Owning and operating arms is my Right... no license or testing should ever be required.

....Saying "well it [the Second Amendment] doesn't really mean shall not be infringed..." is dishonest.

Let's remember that under some well settled principles of Constitutional law, federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have long permitted government to regulate Constitutional rights, subject to certain constraints.

Court rulings have for many years permitted regulation of a Constitutional right as necessary to further a compelling state interest as long as such regulation is as narrow it may possibly be and still serve that interest. Any such regulation must not totally obviate the Constitutional right. Furthermore, any such regulation must be evenly applied and not subject to the discretion of governmental authority. Application of these principles may be understood, I think, in relation to the First Amendment.

While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, assembly and religion, we know there has been a history of certain regulation of speech, assembly and religion. A few examples are:

[1] Laws prohibiting such things as false advertising, fraud or misrepresentation, as well as laws requiring certain disclosures in connection with various transactions, would absolutely survive a challenge to their validity on Constitutional grounds even though such laws do impinge on the freedom of speech. Among other things, such laws serve compelling state interests related to promoting honest business and helping to preserve the integrity of commercial transactions. They tend to be only as broad as necessary to serve that function.

[2] Laws respecting the time, place and manner of speech or assembly have also survived Constitutional challenges. Thus a municipality may require that organizers obtain a permit in order to hold an assembly or a parade and may prohibit such activities during, for example, the very early morning hours. Such regulations would be permitted only to the extent necessary to serve the compelling state interest of protecting public health and safety. Any such regulations, to be constitutionally permissible, could not consider the content of the speech or assembly; and they would need to be applied in an even handed manner based on set guidelines and not subject to the discretion of a public official.

[3] In the past, laws prohibiting polygamy have been upheld against challenges that they violate the right to free exercise of religion. And if someone’s religion required the practice of human sacrifice, he can not expect to successfully hide behind the First Amendment if prosecuted for murder (or assisting a suicide if the victim were willing).

So even with a favorable ruling in Heller, we will continue to see regulation of the RKBA, and much current regulation will survive constitutional challenge. And there will be continued litigation testing existing law, as well as new laws.

 

[Cosmoline]

There's also a pretty huge difference between a state DMV issuing licenses to drive and the federal ATF issuing licenses to own a firearm. The latter is similar to the EPA deciding to give you a license to own a car only if you really *need* a car and if you've filled out your EIS in full.

 

[Rachen]

The amendment process is already sufficiently stringent itself that adding an anti-amendment amendment - which could itself be reversed with another amendment - doesn't add all that much.

I understand that, but if there is writing to go along with it, in case potential statesmen with criminal intentions such as Obama get into office, there will at least be a valid prosecution. If that statesman tries to criminally tamper with the Bill Of Rights, the new amendment on the Constitution can actually be brought up against him/her in court and result in a federal charge. That is to ensure that potential tyrants do not get away from their crimes.

 

[357chevy]

Drivers licence Vs. gun licence

I hate it when people compare driving to owning a gun. Myself, I think we sould come up with a dumb ass test. If you fail, you don't get to drive, have kids, ect. But heres with the drivers licence. People hit & run, vehicular manslater, drunk driving, ect. They all get there licence back. And it would be the same with guns. And there are some people that have no business being able to look at a gun. I see it going like this. A cop stops to talk to a guy walking down the side walk at night to see whats going on. The guy doesn't even give the cop to say a word, and opens fire. Just like they run 100+ mph when they are in a car. Eventualy the cops will catch you, might be when your 90, but they will catch you. And all you to do is say, "well I thought I was going to jail," and the judge hads you back your gun and tells you to repaint a building in the bad part of town. Nobody in there right mind thinks this is right. I'll bet your think thats stupid right now. But it happens everday with cars, so why compare the two. They are Totaly different.

 

[bigfoot311]

in CA, you are required to pass a written test (be it a really stupid one) to own a handgun.

 

[230RN]

Nope.

Both driving and use of guns should be rights to be revoked, not privileges to be granted. *

Besides, what revolutions have been won by car ownership?

A car is not an instrument of political freedom.

-----------
* Along with a bunch of other things I can think of, like opening a business. Just sayin'.

 

[Rachen]

Besides, what revolutions have been won by car ownership?

Yes, revolutions have been won by car ownership: The revolution of transportation Suddenly, the railroad monopolies found themselves losing business FAST.

A car is not an instrument of political freedom.

But you can drive to your nearest NRA meetings with it, right?

 

[retgarr]

Well the thing is, owning a car is a right just as owning a gun is a right. However, driving a car on public roads is a privelage. The states already do regulate where you can and can't use your gun on public lands. The range I go to requires that you have a handgun permit (target/hunting, or carry) and many states will not issue hunting licenses for public lands without a hunter safety course. I submit that the reason we can carry on public lands is that carrying on them does not constitute use, as a gun's intended purpose is for shooting. Similarily a car's intended purpose is for driving, so you don't need a license if it is on a car carrier for example.

 

[Lashlarue]

The one thing no one has mentioned is that licensing is the first step to confiscation.

After invading, Nazis used pre-war lists of gun owners to confiscate firearms, and many gun owners simply disappeared. Following confiscation, the Nazis were free to wreak their evil on the disarmed populace, such as on these helpless Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Politics_in_Germany#The_1938_German_Weapons_Act

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[9]

We all know how well that turned out, unless of course you are president of Iran!

 

[denfoote]

Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Remember, you are never to old to be hung for treason!!
Forced sterilization for all liberals!!

These are things you can bring up to him.

 

[James T Thomas]

for our own good

Licensing is simply the government assuming another method of control and revenue for themselves.

For example: There are many "logical" reasons given to the requirment of obtaining a Permit so that you can remodel or expand your home.
On the face of it, these considerations seem "reasonable." After all...

The government will permit you to do work upon your home?
I suppose that in the sense that we really do not own our homes or properties; just try refusing to pay Property tax like some poor elderly people have been forced to, and you will find out who really owns your home!

So, all the licensing, permits, registrations, fees, etc. no matter how reasonable sounding they are presented to us from our "governmental servants" are
so much deception.

It's not in the Scriptures, but "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"
about sums it up.

 

[pyle]

I'd say that parents need to be trained and licensed before gun owners should ever be.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Someone posted that you don't need a drivers license to buy a car and drive it on your own land, only on public roads.

Isn't a CCW the equivalent of a drivers license in that respect?

 

[jakemccoy]

I live in California. If the license program is "shall issue", I'm all for it. Even make the licensing a bit difficult to pass if you want. Regardless, "shall issue" would be a step up for California.

 

[230RN]

Even make the licensing a bit difficult to pass if you want.

 

[cowssurf]

I believe in licensing and training for concealed carry, as some states require. But it shouldn't be necessary if you keep a gun at home. You can buy a car and legally use it on your property, but once you leave your property with it, you legally need a license to insure the public (on whose property you now are) that you have undergone theoretical and practical training to operate a motor vehicle. I don't see why it would be a problem to have the same regulations on firearms. You can buy one and keep it at home, but if you're going to carry it around town on public property, you need to have a license ensuring the public you know what you're doing.

 

[MagnumDweeb]

For me this is a mixed issue but first, don't mess with the BOR, The Bill of Rights should never be open for amendment, instead we should only be able to add amendments that add greater protections and wider ranges of application i.e. an amendment added to protect the freedom of speech where signs in the front yard, internet publications, and so on are protected as forms of free speech where they involve the economy, politics, or comments on society.

Now as to the whole amending the 2nd Amendment, there should not and no true red-blooded patriotic American would allow it to be restricted in any form. If there is to be an Amendment added it should be to better protect the rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendemnt as recorded in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist paper. Now I'll admit as far as private purchasing, home defense only, and sporting use (at the range, not hunting) I don't feel there needs to be laws or rules to restrict use but rather laws and penalties for either the intentional criminal or unintentional reckless use. ---

--But admittedly when it comes to concealed carry or open carry for that matter (I feel there should only be one permit that allows both to be utilized at the owner's discretion) I feel one should have to take a class much like we have now here in Florida where you get a three hour lecture on the do's, don'ts, and penalties for criminal or reckless use. And, then fire three rounds down range and show you can safely load, aim, and hit a target, then safely unload and render the gun safe and unloaded. As far as training goes... yeah it'd be nice...I'm sorry but having had a couple of friends who were once gun owners who should not be gun owners (popped prescription drugs recreationally, got a superman complex about having a gun and forced me to disarm and unload their firearms on them while they were drunk, and thought having a gun [in one case a CCW permit alone without a gun] gave them license to mouth off and pick fights]) luckily they all needed cash at some point shortly after their purchases and hocked their guns back to the same gunshop they overpayed at.

To that end I think the live firing component of the CCW class (to be turned into a Deadly Weapon Permit as I see it should allow both concealed and open carry of guns, knives, Asps, pepper spray etc.) should be increased and made more sophisticaed in that one has to fire more than three rounds, show proper weapon drawing and aiming, as well as add a written part at the end of it all with a pre-provided study material challenging the course takers knowledge of applicable laws, range of lawful use, range of lawful storage and penalties for failure, and such.

Now I'm not a cowboy, in Florida the time of the Cowboy ended in the seventies more or less, and I'm surely no settlor but for me who well before the age of 21 had three criminals attempt to mug me (three different occassions) me a competitive powerlifter at the times, kickboxing and grappling (before it became called MMA) amateur fighter at the times, granted I only stood 5'9 with a 38 chest, 22-24 arms. I can tell you there are still savages on the loose who won't think it's wrong to pull a kitchen knife, short barrelled Heritage Rough Rider .22lr, and Raven .25, in fact once you mess them up and if they happen to still be concious and breathing, they'll scream profane things at you as they bleed from multiple sources as you hold the heel of your steel toed boot on their unmentionables ready to unman them.

 

[G36-UK]

I always thought that if I was to write a law for licensing gun owners, I'd make it so that it gives more than it takes. So the antis get what they want, but the gun owners get far more in return (mainly because they've been shafted for so long).

Here's what I came up with.

- License is completely voluntary

- Anyone who can own a firearm legally can apply for one

- 6 Month background check, $200 for a lifetime license

- License counts as successful background check for ALL purchases (new form for NFA bypassing LEO signature, requiring only name/address, license number and tax stamp*)

- License will also allow Nationwide CCW (assuming it's not already in place)

- Licencee is exempt from Federal restrictions on purchase (no Hughes Amendment troubles for them, no import ban, etc)

- Extra portion of legislation making confiscation without good reason a capital crime (with lists of what would be good reason)

*TBH, not sure if this would work, advice please?

It's still infringement, but at least there's some silver in the cloud.

 

[Crunker1337]

If open gun ownership is a holdover from cowboy days (which it can't possibly be, the times of the Old West were well after the BoR was passed) then free speech is a holdover from when the government listened, the right to vote is a holdover from when it mattered, etc.

 

[sig2022shooter]

i dont really think making people get a license to own guns would help anything, look at all the people that have a drivers license and are still horrible drivers. it would only make it more difficult and time consuming for law abiding citizens to own guns.

all it would amount to is more paper work, fees, and BS.