Should we have personal interviews, references, training, etc, for gun licenses?

[JRH6856]

None of these things should be necessary to get a permit to either own or carry a firearm because permits should not be required for the exercise or a protected fundamental right.

The right to keep and bear arms is protected by the US Constitution, as are other enumerated such as the rights of freedom os speech, press, religion, and a host of non-enumerated rights. But all rights do not receive the same protections.

The 2nd Amendment opens with the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the peace and security of a free state." In the context of the times when that was written, "well-regulated" meant well-trained. And who is the milita? In the words of George Mason, ""Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people.." So it can be argued that the 2nd Amendment itself, in protecting the right to keep and bear arms, expressed the necessity and and an expectation for those persons bearing arms to be trained in their operation and use. It is part of the responsibility each person has in exercising the right.

So, If we are going to interpret the 2nd Amendment as stating a condition necessay fo keeping and bearing arme, and apply the 2nd Amendment in toto, I have no objection to testing firarms proficiency and basic familiarity with the law as a minimum requirement for keeping and bearing arms. But as the militia is the whole of the people, these things should then be a required part of a basic public curriculum so that everyone who attends school receives them.

If, OTOH, we are going to ignore the necessity of the militia being well trained, and just hipe that each person recognizes and accepts the need as a personal responsibility, then that too is acceptable. But, we do need to better educate people on the responsibilities that are part and parcel of the exercise of any individual rights in a free society.

 

[Pointshoot]

These proposals are a smoke screen.

The first question asked should be "For what purpose would this serve ?"

Are crimes with guns increasing ? - No, they have been decreasing. This is even more so in places with right-to-carry laws.

Are accidents with guns increasing ? - No, they have been decreasing.


There are sincere people out there who are the straight laced, 'ruler follower' types. They often have a 'there outta be a law . . . ' approach to tackling many things. Such people are the perfect target for the antis - - - whose purpose is to disarm the American people.

 

[Tirod]

"well my dog is just being friendly but everybody else's dog needs to be on a leash" mentality.

These are the people who voted Hitler into office.

It's a poor reference from the wrong guys, even worse from a movie, but "we don't need no stinkin badges." If you are a self actualized and independent mind who doesn't let the majority or human authority dictate your morals, then there's a 50/50 chance you will choose to do good most of the time. Problem is, how do you sort us out?

As for all the rest, they are, bluntly, followers who let others think for them and who go along to get along. Their moral dilemmas are generally solved by doing what everyone else is doing around them.

Evacuate New Orleans, well, load up your SUV and drive north. Have a member of your racial makeup beaten, then loot and burn the neighborhood shops you actually frequent for your groceries and such.

So much for the public's morality in general. Hence the expression, Observe the masses, do the opposite.

When the masses deliberately choose authoritarianism and oppression, it's a bad decision. They are being too lazy to discipline themselves, and foolishly hand over their welfare to someone who will, historically and by the usual substandard human nature, take advantage of it.

Any of you license and training proponents willing to move to North Korea? Why not? No doubt you could earn right to carry there. No?

Can you in Great Britain or Australia?

California?

Own AR15's and 30 round mags in NY or CT?

Open carry in your town or state?

It's a sliding scale of permissiveness, the more you allow, the more somebody can and will make a bad decision. How much prior restraint on your rights is your comfort level?

Can you impose that on your neighbor? Is it even legal?

"I'm OK with restricting your rights, but I can carry and do what I want." You sure about that?

 

[Schwing]

I would make a concession (sarcasm here).

When all Americans are required to be proficient in speaking and writing in English before being allowed to exercise their first amendment rights I would consider it.

When all Americans are required to take history and economics classes and pass a psych evaluation before being allowed to vote, I would think about it.

When everyone is required to have an interview and take training before being allowed to drink, use a hammer or a baseball bat, then it would be a fair question. All three of those items kill more people than guns and are not even a right guaranteed by the constitution.

 

[hso]

While no one should ever be subjected to infringements on a right, these ideas are akin to the Jim Crow laws everyone agrees were despicable preventing groups of people from exercising that right. The very same communities and groups would suffer the same injustice that Jim Crow racism burdened them with because they would least be able to afford to meet these requirements.


It would take no effort to show these requirements were "intended" to keep disadvantaged groups from being able to comply and intentionally criminalizing their exercise of the right. The people suggesting these "controls" could be equated to the Klan without having to put much spin on the idea.

 

[Midwest]

The only way the 2A will be lost, is if the American gunowner goes along with it. 'They' cannot take away those rights; only you can give them up.
Wake up boys, you're being played. And, its up to you to Think and not fall for it.

^^^^
This
.

 

[Bobson]

I would sooner advocate for a far less formal approach to buying firearms, and a complete elimination of formality in regards to concealed carry licensing.

Buying a gun and carrying it ought to be about as difficult as buying a loaf of bread from the local grocer and taking it home in the basket mounted to your bicycle.

Now, should we have a greater emphasis placed on training? Would it be a good idea for people to see flyers and bulletins advertising training seminars and classes right there at the gun counter of every store that sells em? Yeah, I think that would help. It's probably fair to say that when it comes to firearms related things, training classes are near the bottom of the barrel in terms of things that "gun people" pay money for. Maybe not on a dollar for dollar level, due to the cost of classes versus the cost of, say, a holster. But in general... IMO, that is a problem. But I don't think it should be forced, even as a prerequisite for buying or carrying. That's moving away from freedom, not toward it.

 

[Ed Ames]

Now, should we have a greater emphasis placed on training? ...

The problem is that people of an authoratative bent see training as a prerequisite. Not just firearms training, but all forms of training.

The truth is that training should be a continuous, beneficial, fun process that everyone wants.

Which do you think would have a bigger impact on safety:

1) Impose whatever restrictions are currently in effect in New York City, nationwide.

2) Take all the money currently spent on background checks, registration (NFA and various state level efforts), licensing, and other authoritarian approaches to gun control, and apply it to free voluntary training on all aspects of gun ownership and use. E.g. maintenance, cleaning, gunsmithing, hunting, target shooting, defensive shooting, etc.. You show up, you take the class, you go home with more knowledge. No certificates, no exercise contingent on, but good information made available.

I would vote for the second option, but authoritarians never think that way.

 

[Bobson]

I couldn't agree more, Ed.

 

[NoVA Shooter]

Sorry, posted this in the 'related' thread...

(also Originally Posted by ACP)
And NO, your hated federal government doesn't have to be in charge of any mandatory training. The NRA and its instructors could come up with qualifications, or private club instructors could do so, an they could administer the test.

It's all great to say 'let's have the NRA come up with qualifications' but who is the only entity that can put the force of law behind it? Yep, the government. And as soon as the government has their hands in it, it won't matter who comes up with the qualifications.

But I want live fire, and an accuracy minimum, and a knowledge of self defense laws and castle doctrine in your home state. I want personal interviews, references, fingerprints, background checks, firearms seized from men who have protective orders issued against them.

Where to start?

Accuracy minimum by whose standards? I'm pretty sure the NRA would say that hitting the broad side of a barn at 3 feet would qualify, but I'm also pretty sure the anti gun crowd would say bulls-eye off-hand 100 shots in a row at 2 miles. Who then gets to arbitrate?

Personal interviews, references, fingerprints, background checks? Well, aside from the logistical impossibility of doing this (what you have stated is the same for getting a clearance, and that costs several thousands of dollars and takes 6 months), the occurrences of CCW holders using their weapon illegally or irresponsibly is so low that it makes this a useless gesture.

 

[Spats McGee]

But I want live fire, and an accuracy minimum, and a knowledge of self defense laws and castle doctrine in your home state. I want personal interviews, references, fingerprints, background checks, firearms seized from men who have protective orders issued against them.

And, BTW, this is The High Road, which is pro 2nd Amendment, but not brain dead. Debates about who should carry and what they have to do to qualify are allowed.

I think everyone should have some live fire training, some competence, and a good working knowlege of laws (including SD laws), both at the federal and state levels. I do not think that any of the foregoing should be mandated to exercise a fundamental, individual right.

Problem #1: The RKBA is an individual, fundamental right, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. If we have to play "Mother, may I?," then we're treating it as a privilege.

Problem #2: Who gets to set the standard, whether it's for accuracy minimum, or mental health evaluations? On the latter, some may think I've gone off the deep end, but I don't have too much trouble imagining our more, erm, dedicated anti-gun opponents taking the position that: "If you want a gun, it's a sign of a propensity for violence. Therefore, if you want a gun, you can't have one."

As for the former, why should an 80-year-old lady with bad eyesight be deprived of her right to self-defense just because she doesn't see well without her glasses?

Personal interviews, references, fingerprints, background checks . . . . See Problems #1 and 2.

 

[morcey2]

I'm an NRA instructor and a very firm believer that all firearms owners/users should have at least some training.

But requiring as a condition of owning firearms is the wrong way to do it and completely violates the 2A.

It would be like requiring anyone who wants to write a blog or a letter-to-the-editor to be able to prove that they have been given "sufficient training" in the English language prior to being allowed.

As I've said before:

Any right that requires the permission of some authority to exercise is no longer a right. This includes safe-storage laws, training requirements, and such "common sense" changes.

Matt

 

[wally]

No, but we should require written exams for voter registration to prove that the voter knows the candidate's and parties positions on the issues before being allowed to vote!

Whatever they propose to apply to gun rights we should turn around and apply it to voting rights!

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

So...I must attend an interview, amongst other things, to PROVE I have a right to my right to keep and bear arms?

Name another right where we must, somehow, justify ourselves to authority in order to exercise that particular right.

When one has to justify their exercising of a right, then what you really have is a "privilege", not a right. Privileges can be extended or denied to anyone at any time for any reason, justified or not.

We either have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, or we MAY be allowed the PRIVILEGE to keep and bear arms. You can't call something a "right" if you administer it like a "privilege".

 

[mgkdrgn]

Why should you need =any license= to exercise an expressly manifested constitutional right in the first place?

THAT is where the debate/discussion belongs, not about which ways that right is violated is less objectionable.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

What is this "license" of which you think?

Mike

 

[12131]

I am all for people getting training and knowing the laws, but they need to do this on their own and not be required by a big bureaucracy.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[tuj]

I am moving to Puerto Rico, where the 2A is not respected or the rule of law, since it is a territory.

In PR, you must obtain a 'licencia de armas' (license for guns) to own a gun. To get the license, you must pass a background check (I'm ok with that), then you must get THREE people who are not related to you to sign affidavits saying you are not crazy in front of a notary, then you must pay about $350 dollars and wait 120 days or so.

The license gives you the right, and this is hilariously bad, to own TWO guns only, and you may own ONLY 50 rounds of ammo specifically for each said gun. Ammo can only be purchased at the gun store, and only for the caliber of guns you have on your license. Also, you are not allowed to transport your weapon to the range but ONCE a year.

Seriously.

Thankfully they have added a 'Target Shooter' license that allows you to expend as many rounds as you want, own as many guns as you want, and shoot as often as you want. However getting the target shooter license is an exercise in and of itself. You must be affiliated with a gun club, which is ironic because you have to join the club before you even have any guns.

No loaded guns in vehicles. No face-to-face transfers; all must go through an FFL (which costs $70 down there...)

Concealed carry? HA, good luck. You need a lawyer, go before a judge and have a GOOD reason aside from 'personal protection' of why you 'need' to carry.

It's a far cry from Texas, where if you can hit a target the size of a flag at 5 yards, you pretty much get your CHL.

Oh well, you win some, you lose some.... Shooting is very important to me and my wife, and we will figure out how to navigate Puerto Rico's laborious gun laws. Eventually.

Edit: The NRA just called me asking for money (I am a member), and they could tell me nothing about what they are going to do for Puerto Rico. They don't seem to realize there are FOUR TIMES more people in Puerto Rico than in Montana. The NRA activist website doesn't even give you the OPTION to sign up as an advocate in Puerto Rico. They recognize DC, but not the US Territories. So therefore, the NRA did not get any money from me today.

 

[Walkalong]

Should we have personal interviews, references, training, etc, for gun licenses?

No, that takes a right protected by the constitution and puts it in the hands of bureaucrats. It's a really dumb idea because we simply cannot trust them with our welfare. Besides, why would we want to give up that right? Silly.

All of these "reasonable restrictions" people come up with are never more than more chipping away at the stone of freedom. Simply sneaky ways to get people to vote their freedoms away. In this case, gun rights.

 

[aarondhgraham]

There is a big IF conected to this.

IF I could be assured of benign people running the checks and making the decisions,,,
Then and only then would I agree this could be a good thing.

My objections rise from a long life of watching regulatory agencies turn into restriction agencies.

I guarantee if this got started it would be just like it was 20 years ago,,,
Only the wealthy and politically connected would pass the background checks.

The original BATF was never intended to be a restrictive agency,,,
But no one is ever appointed to it directorship who isn't anti-gun ownership.

It would be the same way in the stated scenario.

"I am sorry Mr. Graham, but it seems that back in high school you got in a fight over a girl,,,
I'm afraid that we feel your violent tendencies would arise if you carried a gun,,,
Therefore we are denying your application for a license,,,
Feel free to re-apply in five years."

This is what I fear,,,
This is what I would expect.

Aarond

.

 

[Warp]

IF I could be assured of benign people running the checks and making the decisions,,,
Then and only then would I agree this could be a good thing.

It still wouldn't be a good thing.

I don't care if I get to run the checks and make the decisions and I don't care if I make it so that everybody who shows up passes...it would still be wrong and it would still be a violation.

And it would still be bad because it would still reduce the number of people who get licensed.

Just like licenses are bad, even when they are cheap shall issue with no training requirements or anything, because they still reduce the number of people who are eligible to "legally" exercise their so-called-Rights.

 

[herrwalther]

Yes and No. I see the benefits of a detailed vetting process such as fingerprints, interviews etc before granting a permit. Police officers and military go through similar vetting measures to check mental health and criminal affiliations before issuing a firearm. But it is a feel good measure, criminals will obtain and carry firearms illegally. Expensive or long background checks and vetting processes for CCW permits only dissuade law abiding owners.

I lived in New York State, a may issue state before the SAFE act was passed. When it came time to apply for my permit I talked to several friends of mine including local politicians, police officers, and even a county judge. All of them discouraged me from applying simply because of the long and costly process involved, and to take up permanent residence in my university state of Vermont instead. Nevertheless I got the application and went through the hoops. My brother didn't bother to even fill out the application and ended up moving to another state. All in all I received my rejection for a restricted CCW permit 4 months after I had moved out of NY. I can only wonder how many people in may issue states are rejected or disheartened from exercising their "right" to carry a firearm.

 

[Midwest]

Some of these comments look exactly like the playbook from Brady II, the failed gun control legislation from 20 years ago. Especially the comments about a "gun license".

Right now on the anti-gunner's agenda is UBC (Universal Background Checks) and a 10 round magazine limit (they are REALLY pushing this in NJ). And what is beyond this?

Lets say hell freezes over and both the UBC and the 10 round mag limit passes and is signed into law. What next beyond that? Of course you know they will want more.

Well we already have a good idea and it was called "Brady II". It was supposed to be the 'next' thing on the 'list' after the first Brady Bill and the so called "1994 Assault Weapons Ban" was signed into law.

Take a gander of what they proposed, and please keep in mind that they probably had this 'in the can' ready to go. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/brady2.html
and http://www.volokh.com/posts/1190402417.shtml

Brady II proposals in italics, my comments underneath each proposal in parenthesis .


"All magazines which hold more than 6 rounds would be outlawed."

(New York State tried the 7 round limit with the SAFE Act)


"It would become a federal crime to buy more than one handgun a month."

(In New Jersey there has been a one handgun a month law in place for some time.)



"Gun shows would be destroyed, since licensed firearms dealers would not be allowed to sell guns at the show."



"Ownership of a gun for protection would not be considered a legitimate "need." "

(Just like the U.K. and Australia)



"Brady II would increase the taxes to 30% on handguns, and 50% on ammunition. So a $500 pistol would cost $650, and a $20 box of ammunition would cost $30."

(Some states are considering taxes on ammunition http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/07/gun-taxes-owners-second-amendment/2049363/ )



"Every handgun buyer would be required to obtain a state handgun license. The license would be good for no more than two years. No-one could obtain a license without passing a state-controlled "safety" course. "

(A license and a safety course to buy a handgun has been suggested by some here on THR)


"The fees for the license and the safety course would have no limits. The fees could be set far in excess of the state cost of providing the license and the course; instead, the fees could a source of general revenue."


"Nothing would prevent licensing authorities from taking months or years to issue a license. And nothing would prevent the authorities from making the "safety" test so rigorous that almost no-one except an expert shooter could pass."

(New York State residents have to wait a year or longer to get a handgun "license"
http://www.nyfirearms.com/forums/pistol-permits/53254-nassau-county-1-5-year-wait-now.html )


"Arsenal licensing Any person who owns 20 or more firearms or more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition or primers (e.g. two "bricks" of rimfire ammo) would be required to get an "arsenal" license. To obtain a federal arsenal license, a person would need to be fingerprinted, obtain permission of local zoning authorities, and pay a $300 tax every three years."

Kind of surprising that some of the comments here on THR seem to come out of the playbook of "Brady II" . Or maybe not so surprising.....


Now, about having anti-gun legislation already written up just waiting for the "time to introduce it". Well, lets not forget that DiFi already was working on an assault weapons ban for a year before Sandy Hook. She had the bill all ready to go. http://www.nraila.org/legislation/f...ein-goes-for-broke-with-new-gun-ban-bill.aspx

So based on Brady II and DiFi's comments. I strongly believe that the anti's already have the next step of anti-gun legislation all written up and ready to go at a moments notice.

.

 

[HOOfan_1]

I want less government control of my life and liberty...so NO!!!!

 

[happygeek]

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.

You know, that's pretty much the way it was in the not-so-distant past.

Yep, no reason to wonder. The FBI was even keeping homicide stats back then (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html). A weird thing happened the year after they changed things ...