The Confirmed Responsible Armed Citizen Act

[Bobson]

This thread needs a Confirmed Responsible Armed Person joke. And now that it has one, I'll add my serious comments.

Absolutely, I'd sign up for it if it existed. But I wouldn't support it during its course from idea to law. Not unless it required a much higher age for eligibility than to own a handgun; say, 30 years old for CRAP eligiblity. I mean CRAC.

And that age requirement would just be an early-stage issue with it. I haven't given it enough thought to know if there are others.

 

[bikerdoc]

pay, say, $500 to have them background check the living daylights out of you and if you passed this extensive check and completed an approved training course (much like CCW training in some states), you got a little card that made you a "Confirmed Responsible Armed Citizen."

B S !!!!!!!
I am already a CRAC. I dont need an extensive background check. A cursory look at my life will tell you that.

 

[waterhouse]

I don't like the idea for several reasons, but wanted to reiterate the already mentioned point that extensive background checks, where a human being travels around in person to interview your friends, coworkers, family, friends of friends, and and ex friends/coworkers/lovers etc, generally costs many many thousands of dollars, often times over 10,000 depending on your age and past experience.

 

[hso]

This never ends well..

Yep

you could pay, say, $500 to have them background check the living daylights out of you

Incorrect. Background checks of that level would cost around $4500 and would exclude a remarkable number of people.

This has a better chance of passing than most other attempts to give gun owners more rights because it involves the government getting more money out of us.

Nope

You're ignoring the constitutional issues around individual states authority to make law.

 

[Kleanbore]

Bad idea

 

[mgmorden]

We don't need anymore laws or actions that serve to create more clicks of "haves" and "have nots". Rights are supposed to be granted to all, not achieved after taking some convoluted class. How long until we have to get special permits for all the amendments?

 

[C0untZer0]

I don't think a simple background check - like the ones they do for employment would necesarily turn up evry person who shouldn't have a gun.

A secret clearance type check probably would, but in 1983 it cost approximately $75,000 I have no odea what it costs now.

But hey... I've been paying out the nose to educate other people's kids, heck, even paying for other people to have kids.

I'm all for allocating the government spending to provide for it. Then we only have the pesky 4th amendment to worry about.

 

[Sam1911]

There are some precidents for things something like this, for example MD's Firearms Collector regitration. When you consider what is actually being done by that program, it is an amazing farce.

Taken from a broader perspective, hey just go ahead and sign up with our database ... we'll throw you a bone.

(Come to the dark side, we've got cookies!)

 

[Godsgunman]

Let me guess, you're one of the libs that cries foul when states want voters to produce an ID so they can't vote as Mickey Mouse and come back an hour later and vote as Juan Pablo Escabar but you obviously have no problem with the government requiring law abiding citizens jump through hoops and be tracked, stamped, and "approved". Wreaks of liberal bull dooky.

 

[Sam1911]

Let's not go tossing around the "Liberal" and "Conservative" epithets just yet, ok?

 

[geekWithA.45]

The only reason to even consider curtailing the exercise of individual rights is criminal guilt.

For this, I insist upon a policy of

"Presumed innocent, until proven guilty"



This sort of thing is not consistent with that. It creates a de-facto policy of "presumed ineligible, unless certified to the contrary. Papers, please!"



I have a stack of papers about a foot high, from numerous governments, attesting to my Certified Good Guy nature.

I could still hypothetically go rob a bank tomorrow.

(And no, I don't rob banks. I'm a Certified Good Guy, see?)

 

[Brockak47]

Keep on dreamin'

 

[Owen Sparks]

Why should you have to pay the government to investigate you and prove you are not a criminal before allowing you to exercise a constitutionally enumerated right? You should not have to prove yourself innocent. The burden of proof is supposed to be on your accuser.

 

[Cosmoline]

likely under the auspices of the BATF,

No way would I agree to that. It's like letting the EPA decide whether you should have a driver license and a car. To give an agency who's mandate is openly hostile to civilian firearm ownership any further control over that ownership is madness.

Now if you're talking about some kind of new agency or some variation on the CMP manage the program, I'm more interested. But there is so little trust for the feds now (for good reason) that they'd face a very heavy burden to prove they wouldn't abuse a federal permitting system. I'd want to, at a minimum, see a complete repeal and reworking of all federal gun laws back to the GCA itself. I'd want to see federal funds and support for training, ranges and the sale of surplus full autos to citizens. And I'd want to see a 180 degree shift in their attitude from a fundamentally anti-gun approach to one focused on arming and training the citizenry.

Not impossible, but pretty unlikely.

 

[Texan Scott]

Counter-proposal... how about an ASSUMED responsible armed citizen act? as in, unless they have legal proof to the contrary, they should be bound to treat all citizens (THEIR EMPLOYERS) as law abiding citizens with all the rights and priviledges that entails?

 

[ThorinNNY]

Sounds good to me, Texan Scott. I suspect you have familiarized yourself with the US Constitution !

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

There is a cheaper and constitutional way to achieve this. Keep violent criminals locked up. Abolish the ATF. Abolish the NICS. Repeal the NFA, GCA, and all the rest. Compel the several states to abide the Second Amendment.

Done. No paper work needed. No ID card needed. No permits needed. No violations of the Constitution.

Woody

 

[DefiantDad]

Perhaps I can express my view on this with a parody:

The Confirmed Responsible Discussion Citizen Act

Pay $X dollars and have them background check the living daylights out of you and if you passed this extensive check and completed an approved training course you got a little card that have you the following rights:

- You can publicly express your opinion on a wide range of subjects (but only with other certified citizens and with non-certified citizens only within the prescribed Allowable Topics list - see website for latest approved topics list).

- You can join and post on Internet forums (but only via the Confirmed Responsible Discussion SIID number - your assigned Safe Internet Identifier number).

- You may buy, without going through background checks at the Point of Purchase, and use Communications Capable Devices and Tools (CCDT) which currently include computers, portable electronic devices, and pens and paper.

-Those little "No Unrecorded Discussions Please" signs do not apply to you!

While posted (somewhat) in jest, I am sure you get the basic point.

 

[Salmoneye]

Bad idea

Yep...

 

[o Unforgiven o]

"Shall not be..."

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

infringed; "Act so as to limit or undermine (something)..."

 

[checkmyswag]

$500 why? Then its $1000 then $5000. Then you have to keep your guns locked up at the hunting club. Then the fee is $10,000.

Watch your lane.

 

[Frank Ettin]

First, nothing like this would every be enacted.

Second, as others have said, there are significant constitutional issues and for a variety of policy reasons it would be a bad idea.

But let's finally drive a stake through the heart of this idea by having a look at what might be involved in a vetting process that would result in one having the "privileges" described by the OP.

The OP is basically describing what goes along with being an LEO: near universal concealed carry; ready access to possession of NFA items; qualified immunity when using a firearm in justified self defense. Perhaps then it would be expected that a private citizen to attain that status would submit to the training requirements and background investigation undergone by someone wanting to be a cop at a major agency. What would that involve?

1. As hso pointed out, the cost would be around $4,500 (at least).
   
   
2. POST (Police Officer Standards and Training) firearms certification appears to require a minimum of 24 hour of training, qualification and periodic re-qualification.
   
   
3. The details of the vetting/background check vary somewhat, but they may include (using my local PD as an example):
   
   
   • Completion of a detailed "life history" questionnaire;
     
     
   • An interview;
     
     
   • A polygraph examination;
     
     
   • A physical examination including a drug screen;
     
     
   • A psychological evaluation, including an interview with a psychologist; and
     
     
   • Interviewing friends and neighbors.

This is all theoretical of course. But that just might be the sort of background investigation and qualification that Congress might expect of someone who really wanted to be a Confirmed Responsible Armed Person.

Anyone interested?

I'll skip this one myself.