Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

National FOID?, gun law idea

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by ewlyon, Jan 13, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yo Mama

    Yo Mama Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,851
    What part of your idea would stop criminal activity?
     
  2. Sock Puppet

    Sock Puppet Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    526
    Location:
    High Desert
  3. mf-dif

    mf-dif Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2012
    Messages:
    321
    Location:
    Georgia
    It would be a cluster if done nationally. It's still a cluster in IL. Takes 3-mon to get because the State is back logged and costs $10. The form states they are to be fulfilled in a month I believe. I'm bet that doesn't even cover the cost of maintaining the program.

    Federally if a $200 tax stamp takes 6-months...imagine how long it would take them to complete a $10 FOID card. I'm sure the cost would be increased.

    Does it keep weapons and ammo out of criminal hands? Just look at Chicago gang violence.
     
  4. Neo-Luddite

    Neo-Luddite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,993
    Location:
    Northwest IL--the other 'Downstate'
    I've no doubt your best intentions, but please just say ~

    NO!!! :cuss:
     
  5. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    33,801
    Location:
    Central PA
    :) I appreciate that you've put a lot of thought into this, but obviously you're in for a rough ride! :) There's not much in this that seems like a positive change.

    We DO NOT WANT federal gun laws. That would be a miserable thing. What if the good Pennsylvanians, Arizonans, Floridans, Wyoming-ites (???), and others of states with minimal laws had to live like the poor, miserable, benighted Californians or Hawaiians or New Jerseyans? There has to be somewhere in this great country where you can go to get out from under draconian laws.

    But further, you really need to understand the Constitution and how our federal and state government arrangement was set up. The 2nd Amendment said that the Federal government would NOT step in and place infringements on the right of the citizens to bear arms (but the STATES certainly could). The 14th Amendment and subsequent interpretation say that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the states in general, but that has to balance against the 9th Amendment which says that those powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the individual states, or to the citizens of those states. So NO, the feds should never be writing federal gun laws. (They have, and those pretty much all SUUUUUUUCK.)

    INTRODUCE MORE HURDLES? Well, full stop right there. Argument is derailed, end of story.

    Some of your arguments are interesting. It would be really nice to simply expand the C&R FFL to make it more of a general gun-collector's license that would cover all firearms, and perhaps open up Title II firearms as well.

    There are already plenty of hurdles to buying a gun. Expanding the C&R idea would give you what you're looking for without introducing more CRAP hanging over the heads of the rest of society.

    No. Duh. :rolleyes:

    Hmmm... probably pretty difficult, but maybe. A number folks could VOLUNTARILY call before making a private transfer? Not a terrible idea, though pretty irrelevant for most folks. A handful would use it. A slightly larger handful would even realize it existed. Remember many if not most gun transfers are just between pals and acquaintances who swap guns without even giving a thought to the legalities of it. That's not going to change, ever.

    Uh, how do you set up a waiting period that is enforceable on folks who aren't going through licensed channels anyway? :D Think that one through for a minute. I mean, you could say "pretty please with a cherry on top?" but most will utterly flout such a law.

    No idea. And I'm not certain the BAZILLIONS of false-positives wouldn't just make it a total morass anyway.

    If it is a federal license (I assume we're talking about the new expanded C&R thing, right?) then it has to be federally administered.

    NOW, to be fair, I'm not sure that the Constitution give the federal government the right to do this thing, but they seem to sort of anyway, so...?
     
  6. blkbrd666

    blkbrd666 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,301
    Location:
    Georgia
    I've got an idea for gun control too. "Drop the existing restrictions and then leave everyone and everything alone".
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 13, 2013
  7. Queen_of_Thunder

    Queen_of_Thunder member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,881
    Location:
    Where God purifies the soul. The West Texas desert
    Oh HE double hockey stick NO.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2013
  8. JohnnyK

    JohnnyK Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    Messages:
    837
    Location:
    TEXAS
    we already have a foid... its called a chl.
     
  9. JohnM

    JohnM Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,640
    Location:
    Down there by the river
    It just amazes me that some of you who live under such onerous restrictions on your RKBA would think that those of us who live where the 2nd Amendment is respected would like to see such things applied to us.
     
  10. egg250

    egg250 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    114
    ummm....no.
     
  11. xfyrfiter

    xfyrfiter Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2010
    Messages:
    726
    Location:
    NW New Mexico
    Dude, it looks to me like YOU, get a resounding and much deserved NO NO NO and your romper room privilidges are suspended for the time being.
     
  12. freyasman

    freyasman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Messages:
    275
    No, no, no, no, no....
     
  13. 2ifbyC

    2ifbyC Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Messages:
    298
    Location:
    Arizona
    Curses! FOIDed again. (Red Baron circa WWI).

    I admire your spirit in suggesting more restrictions or compromise as a way of thwarting further erosion of the 2A. Your thinking is a paradox. You are offering restrictions for what in return?

    Do you really believe that Feinstein et al will reduce their demands once you hand them a gift of further restrictions. Your gesture will be seen as a sign of weakness; total confiscation is their goal.

    It’s time we take a detour from the high road. They have been in the mud-slinging business a long time. It’s time we prepare to fight dirty.
     
  14. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,854
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    My response, as always:

    "NO, I REFUSE."

    Better think of something else.
     
  15. Steve H

    Steve H Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,328
    Location:
    Southern Utah
  16. jbm

    jbm Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    34
    There is so much wrong with this, I don't even know where to begin.

    1) The US Government can't just tell states to get rid of their laws, so any federal laws would be on top of state laws.
    2) The idea that the Feds can just say "no in state sales" violates the US Constitution. (Would you want the federal government involved in the sale of your house, your car, your garage sale?) I remember a politician saying something like "we didn't go after private sales in the last ban because they didn't want it overturned on a constitutional basis". The Feds aren't so supposed to have anything to do with in-state commerce. Only inter-state commerce. I know they do, but that doesn't mean we should just roll over and let them do it.
    3) You want us to wait a few months to get a card? What keeps the Feds from making it a few years (de facto gun ban). The idea that you're willing to let the Feds regulate your constitutional rights, doesn't mean that I am.
    4) You want the ATF to get access to your medical and driving records? No thanks.
    5) Once the Feds get a national set of gun laws, they'll "tweak" them until there is nothing left. Aside from the military (which they work real hard to try and screw up), what has the Federal Government done correctly? And you want the Feds involved with this?

    I don't understand why people thing there is any way to deal with anti-gun politicians that want to take our guns away. There isn't. We gun owners need to get it through our heads -- appeasement doesn't work. Never has, never will.

    Your last statement makes me think that you'll get something in return for this "compromise". You won't. We never do. The strides we have made in gun laws (e.g. concealed carry) took a long time and a lot of fighting.

    With pro-gun people thinking like this, we don't need antis.

    Brad
     
  17. guitarguy314

    guitarguy314 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    285
    The government should have absolutely positively zero say in how I choose to use my money as long as I'm not actively hurting or infringing on someone else.

    End of Story.
     
  18. Lateck

    Lateck Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    249
    Location:
    Arizona
    Another NO.
    But thanks for asking comrade. I know any list a government has will never be used for the wrong reasons, (right comrades?).
    But seriously, NO.

    Lateck,
     
  19. Ehtereon11B

    Ehtereon11B internet infantryman

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    983
    National FOID and turn our entire weapon system into Illinois, worse than California, NY, and NJ combined? Are you a troll?
     
  20. Lupinus

    Lupinus Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,502
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    Not only no, but heck no.

    What we want, what needs to happen, is a reduction in the restrictive, invasive, and largely ineffective federal gun laws. Name me one federal gun law that has in any way served to stop a crime or even at least inhibit it from being committed?

    Such laws serve only to inhibit law abiding people from doing things. If one is a criminal, they get what they want. We, meanwhile, have to jump through hoops IF we can even legally obtain it at all.

    So as to the idea presented, it does exactly the opposite. It's adding another very large layer of bureaucracy. Another layer of infringement. And not even having the decency of doing a darn thing to reduce crime or keep criminals from doing whatever they want.
     
  21. Analogkid

    Analogkid Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2011
    Messages:
    381
    Again, how would any of this stop criminal activity?
     
  22. SigMic

    SigMic Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    61
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I'm going to take the High Road by keeping my answer short....

    NOOOOOOOOOO
     
  23. 22-rimfire

    22-rimfire Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    11,400
    Location:
    TN
    Sounds to me like you want to infringe on an honest person's right to keep and bear arms. National FOID cards... hell no!

    People propose new rules and regulations in an attempt to be "reasonable". Well, the only people that most of these possible new regulations affect are lawful gun owners. Why would that be a good thing?

    I don't hold to the concept of "if one life is saved..." There were over 1000 auto fatalities in my state in 2012. I don't hear anyone wanting to ban motor vehicles, place govenors on them, or restrict the gas tank size???
     
  24. thunder173

    thunder173 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    813
    Location:
    Upper Peninsula, Michigan
    Not only NO!,...But.......,...well you get the point. I hope.
     
  25. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    Are you saying that SCOTUS can't be wrong and that its decisions can't be reversed? SCOTUS also once held that slavery was legal and abortion was not. I take it you're ok having the camel's nose under the tent?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page