Quantcast

Thoughts on a complete rewrite...

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by Godfather'sGun, May 5, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Godfather'sGun

    Godfather'sGun Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2018
    Messages:
    11
    Hello all. This is my first post other then my intro. It may seem very ambitious for a first post, but although I am new to this forum, I am not new to forums. I used to post a lot in the past, but it became too much of a time suck and I had to give it up. But I have found myself with a lot of free time lately due to a herniated disk in my lower back and with that I have been able to dedicate some time to one of my (and most important) passions. And that is the subject of firearms and freedom. In the past I have toyed with ways to end the debate over the 2nd forever. With this new free time, I have dived deep into it, thinking, researching, and contemplating. As you may have already noticed this is a very lengthy post, but I have tried to make it concise without leaving too much out since some may not have as much background as others. I am no politician or professional writer with a way to reach many people with this, so I am starting with public forums before reaching further. I also only consider it a first draft because I also am not a lawyer or anything like that nor have pretenses as such. I just want to provide an idea as a starting point and ask for your suggestions and thoughts on it so we can revise it. Our Founding Fathers were geniuses, but their smartest contribution was knowing that no man is an island and there is always someone with better ideas as well as the need to debate those ideas and reform them into a final product. That is what I want this to be… Or I’m just crazy and we throw it out, but hopefully not before getting at least something out of it.

    TL; DR version? Nope. This could lead to the greatest change in our country since the Civil War. Read it and add to it. Don’t dismiss it or you may lose your chance to have a say in it. As mentioned, I plan to revise it and eventually bring it to larger and more “powerful” audiences. Even our Revolution and Declaration of Independence was born as a simple idea that grew to greatness.


    We are at a crossroads for the 2nd amendment. We have seen more attacks on it then any time before in my generation (I am knocking on 40). There are more restrictions on firearm types then ever before, 1994-2004, notwithstanding. More are being pushed every day. Our only victories are the occasional rollback of a previously made restriction, but even this is minimal and fleeting. We have facts, studies, and data on our side, but they are ignored by everyone from politicians to the media to laundry detergent eating punks. It’s time for a new strategy, a radical strategy, and a completely new system.

    Without that, one of four scenarios will play out:

    1. The status quo continues. Both sides continue to fight for small victories. As history shows and I said above, our small victories are fleeting and minimal. No legislation ever passes or is even given the light of day for that matter, that overturns any previous significant restriction. Will the acts of 1934, 68, or the 86 Hughes amendment ever be repealed? Not a chance as things sit now. Hell, we’re fighting for national reciprocity and noise reduction (suppressors), two things that should never have been restricted to begin with and in the overall scheme of things, are relatively minor (although if NR passes, I would say it’s a big feather in our hat). We simply kick the can further down the road for the future generations to struggle with and ultimately, probably lose. We also continue with the ridiculous patchwork of laws across our nation that helps no one but the power-hungry politicians and a few “feel-gooders” (yes, I made that term up) and instead only hurts innocent people trying to protect themselves or loved ones.

    2. We have some bad luck. The next or some future election goes poorly and we end up with an anti-2nd congress, POTUS, or both. Said POTUS gets to elect more anti-2nd SCOTUS judges and we are screwed. As much as we and our Founding Fathers want(ed), we know from history that the SCOTUS is not unbiased. Recent remarks have shown this, and unless it is a blatant infringement, what they say is law. There is no one higher to appeal to and congress is loath to stick their neck out to help. And SCOTUS have already laid groundwork for this with the “some reasonable restrictions” comment. And remember, this can happen any election cycle forever. We may be fine for our lifetime, but like #1, our children, grandchildren, etc., may find themselves in this dire situation. Are we comfortable with that?

    3. We have some good luck. The flip side of #2. But as also in #1 and 2, unless we get REALLY lucky, it only delays the inevitable.

    4. We can call this one the SHTF. #1, or 2 happens and eventually leads to extreme restrictions. The 2nd itself will probably be safe simply because of the extreme difficulty in changing our Constitution, but we could see a ridiculous amount of restrictions, “shall not be infringed” be damned. That term obviously means little to them. This is the outcome that leads to either us becoming another dictatorship, an Orwellian society, or something else along those lines; or we rise up and fight it. Yes, that means civil war. We do NOT want civil war. No sane person wants civil war. If it came down to it, I would be one of the first to join the fight, but I, nor should anyone, want it to come to that. Many, many people will die, including innocent people. It will be horrific. War is bad. I do agree that sometimes war is necessary, and so far, our country has a really good (but not perfect) track record of going to war for justified reasons, but in every single case, and in every single war in the history of mankind, a peaceful solution to whatever grievance was had by the initial declarer or attacker in the conflict would have been preferred. Sometimes a peaceful solution is not possible (e.g. Hitler needed his ass handed to him), but then and only then, is war justified. We need a solution before it comes to that.

    I have a possible solution to propose. It is absolute and all encompassing. It will end the debate once and for all because it does not allow any further debate once enacted and has provisions for the future to remove the need for debates on future technologies that we currently can’t foresee. It removes the patchwork of laws. It simplifies the entire system, while (hopefully, remember this is just the first draft) literally giving every reasonable person on both sides what they want. “Reasonable” person of course means those without agendas; some on both sides will not go along with this or anything like it no matter what we try, but if they hold us back, we end up in one of the above situations. It does NOT include compromises in the normal sense of the word. Almost no one on either side will agree to compromise. The only minimal things that can be viewed as “compromise” are actually already in effect in many parts of the country; they are simply used in a different and better way here. Thanks to modern technology, it is a solution without the need for any real compromise by either side. There are literally no downsides.

    And by the way… no more NFA. Did that get your attention? Good. Obviously, there are rules here for both sides, that’s what is meant by giving everyone what they want. But remember, It’s the end of the fight for our freedom. No more fighting; no more wondering what they’re going to restrict next, no more having to choose between “getting judged by twelve or carried by six.” There are sections that will be controversial, but please read through the entire thing, it works as a complete system and so while the controversial sections will seem crazy, wrong, or just plain unworkable, when taken with the whole system and its solutions, those points make sense and work as part of the whole system. Also, any fears or conspiracies relating to controversial sections should be minimal for the simple fact that this system gives us civilians unprecedented access to equipment never before dreamed possible. The antis want to repeal the 2nd? Sure, but this is the new one.

    A quick note before I get to the meat and potatoes. Henceforth, I will be using the term “arm” or “arms.” Our Founders used it for the 2nd and for good reason. They did not want to restrict it to only firearms and neither do I. Arms are more then just firearms. They also include other military equipment. This was proven by the clarification and permission that was given to a civilian trading vessel owner to install artillery on his ship by non-other then President Madison himself. It also includes things like bladed weapons, other propellants, non-weapon items such as body armor or technology, as well as things not yet imagined at the time of ratification. They knew technology would evolve and so do we. Well regulated means we get everything. Also, this overall proposal, amendment, bill, or whatever it ends up being called is a complete system and that is what I’ll refer to it as for now; “the system.”

    First, the good part. We begin with a completely clean slate. Every existing arms regulation already on the record at the federal, state, and local level is gone. Everything. No more NFA. No more tax stamps. Nothing. This package becomes the new federal system for every arm regulation now and forever. No state or local laws may be put forth. I am all for state rights and limiting federal power, but as was the case of the human decency atrocity that was slavery, they had their chance and screwed it up. The states and local jurisdictions proved they are incapable of regulating arms properly. The decent, innocent people they have locked up for using, or were outright denied the right of basic self-preservation for a proven net-negative benefit to society have proved this. They have failed, their rights have been revoked. They still get to make their own laws in other subjects, but in regards to the 2nd… nope, no more. Sorry, not sorry. Some states and areas get this correct currently, and to them I say thank you, but in order for this system to work as intended, it has to be across the board. Ironically, many of the states that abused with slavery, happen to be those same states that have the 2nd correct now; call it a penance. In reality, the system doesn’t shift the power from the states to the federal government; it shifts it back to the people where it belongs.

    As I mentioned above, this new system is forever. It will have to include a clause that it cannot be changed or revoked outside of the specific and narrow ways allowed within. It becomes essentially a new and improved 2nd amendment.

    Many laws currently in effect can provide guidelines for the new system but it goes both ways; reusing what worked and/or makes sense and knowing what needs to be left a relic of the purge. Laws regarding crimes used with, and/or possession of, arms by restricted persons still apply. Bad guys still can’t have arms and will pay dearly for using them. That shouldn’t need saying, but I want to put those minds at ease that may not yet realize my overall goal here and prevent wrong assumptions. Law enforcement databases currently in use for things like stolen guns or guns used in crimes are unaffected. Also staying are laws regarding export. The PLCAA has no reason to be changed or annulled. Laws regarding use of force should only be amended to remove onerous restrictions or requirements. For example “duty to retreat” needs to retreat, no one should be required to escape their home. We need to continue simple consumer safety laws. None of that “it’s a gun, it’s dangerous” nonsense they tried in the past. Just the functions as intended rules; we don’t want our hands blown off because a manufacturer got cheap and used pot metal for the chamber of a 12 gauge or some other design flaw. There also needs to be restrictions based on national security technologies. There are already some restrictions regarding this. For example, GPS had minimal accuracy for civilians until they decided to release the full capabilities of it to the general public. I will go into further detail about military equipment and technology below.

    Now the less fun parts, the restrictions we will need. What, you thought that was it? As much as some would love to leave it at that, we all know that would go nowhere. Essentially, it’s a licensing system. But don’t freak out, it is not like anything else. As I said earlier, there is no real compromise here and it actually makes things simpler, more convenient, and gives us more freedom then we have now; a LOT more. And although it requires a “database,” it is not like the type we want to, and must, avoid. The antis have screamed for a license and database system requirement, so let’s give them one. One that works while still providing the anonymity and protections that we MUST have while solving all the problems with current restrictions and giving us more freedom than we’ve had in a century. I am describing the licenses first, but in the final draft they will likely be written in a later article, but since they are the foundation of the system, I wanted to get them out front.

    Here is how it works:

    There are three classes and only three, though there are some subcategories within. They each build on the previous (except for 1J) and their individual particulars are as follows:

    1. Class 1 is the base class license. Minimum age is 18 or 12 with a licensed guardian’s consent (Class 1 Juvenile). 1 J is a similar concept to a learner permit version of a driver’s license. Class 1 is essentially like the current normal gun owner and CCW system rolled into one but without the state’s restrictions that exist currently. The only restrictions on the arms themselves are no full-auto or modifications to increase rate of fire, including indirectly (bump stocks, for example), or any arm above that standard. So, no grenades or whatnot. There are also no restrictions on possession, type (shot, pistol, crossbow, SBR, etc.), caliber, accessories other than rate of fire increasers (suppressors, pistol mounted stocks, etc.), transporting, open or concealed carry, collection size, number purchased in any time frame, waiting periods, ammo/propellent, or any other arbitrary restrictions such as tax stamps, as well as including “gun free zones” besides the obvious one (courts and some other gov’t facilities, but not all). Safety rules outlined below apply to all classes. The juvenile version eliminates the ability to purchase on their own (they need a licensed adult guardian with them), and the various carry and transport portions of the class. It really is just a license in name only and not really necessary because licensed guardians can share their arms with their children within obvious safety boundaries. I include it to simply enforce the idea for and to allow the younger ones to “get their feet wet.” It will help promote proper and responsible arms use as they are growing up and at least in some cases, give them the incentive to think twice before doing something stupid that gets it revoked. That revocation is lifelong, not just until they reach “adulthood.” But there will be methods to appeal the revoked right for minor offences and have it reinstated. More below about this. There is no juvenile version of class 2 or 3.


    2. This class has a minimum age of 21 but bumps the possessor up to allowing full-auto as well as new technology arms not yet invented until said arms are considered common and become allowed at the class 1 level. An example would be hand held rail guns or lasers. We’re pretty sure they’ll happen eventually, since the technology exists within the military already, so we can presume they will get more practical at some point. At the point where they are no longer under the national security restrictions, they will hit the civilian market. At first, they will fall under the category of “advanced arms” which means this license class, except the ones under class 3. Once that arm becomes common, maybe based on number in circulation, adoption by multiple agencies (law enforcement) or some combination of the two, or simply time, the arm then leaves the advanced arm category, and unless it’s something along the lines of full-auto or continuous (like a laser), then it becomes allowed by class 1 holders. Class 1 versions of said arms could also be produced as well, just like there are civilian versions of many current arms now. This class also allows small scale production similar to the way small boutique and kit car builders are allowed to manufacture and sell in the U.S. within their limits outlined by the law (that’s a gross simplification, but I’m not going to get into an automotive discussion here). This class is also for arms parts manufacturers. It also allows you to be a dealer for any arm covered within these first two classes’ allowances. You will need a class 2 manufacturer and/or dealer endorsement to partake in either though. More about that later.


    3. This class lets the holder have nearly everything outside of explosives, i.e. if our military has it, so can we. Want an M1A1? Go for it. A-10? Just get out your checkbook (if it’s a fat one). Now this does come with some caveats. That national security regulation I mentioned above? This it where it mainly comes into play. If a technology is military proprietary (MPT), then no one can have it…yet. We can’t have our most advanced technologies fall into the hands of governments or “organizations” that do not have our best interests in mind. The security of those technologies is the military’s responsibility and it should remain that way. However, all technology will and must trickle down at some point, it always has and always will, even without legal requirements. Despite that, not allowing some tech to trickle down would be a form of infringement, so it will need to be legally spelled out. This aspect will need some further debate and input to iron out the details, but here is a start. What is MPT? Something new that our country has developed for military, or possibly law enforcement use, that is new and/or advanced to a degree to provide a significant advantage to the U.S.’s interests. When must it trickle down? When a newer version (generation) or a new solution is found that causes the previously MPT item to become obsolete or common in the national security sense, not quite the same “common” as mentioned in class #2, but if versions are created by other nations or our military begins sharing it, then it no longer has MPT status. Time can also be used as a determining factor. However, MPT cannot be a blanket rule. While you may not get its reactive armor or its multi-shot, simultaneous hit target system (they have some fancy name for it, but I don’t remember it), you can buy an M1A1 without those things and upgrade later when they do trickle down. Also, not all MPT will trickle down to class 3; some will go straight to class 2, such as hand held projectile arms, or non-weapon items that are still regulated, could go straight to class 1. Many will scoff at the idea of a civilian owning a Warthog, but the reality is there are few who could afford it and even less that would want to. Besides, currently planes are legal in civilian hands and guns are legal in civilian hands, this just allows them to be combined (again, the A-10 just being an example), and tanks as a catagory are not outlawed, there are just some restrictions on them. And again, to reiterate; all class tiers have to abide by the safety laws and the rules of use unique to that item (if you buy an A-10, you still have to abide by FAA rules), as well as the class specific requirements and regulations. Obviously, there cannot be a free for all; very few would go along with that. Additionally, as I mentioned, we’ll have to restrict explosive ordinance. As much as we’d love to have a crate of hand grenades in our safe, that’s getting a bit carried away. Our society is not utopian, occasionally an otherwise good person does “snap” and we don’t need them launching a Javelin into Times Square because they got butthurt. I suppose if there is some kind of agreement and workable plan, we could have a clause or a forth class that allows some explosive ordinance, but I assume, and with good reason, that that is never going to fly. Maybe a supervised range that allows civilians to go have some fun for an afternoon, but no purchase or procession outside of that could work I suppose. This class also opens dealers to the level of the arms allowed under it and is also the level that full scale manufacturers will need to obtain, again, by way of endorsements.


    The rules in general.

    1. Applicants must pass a background check. What, did you think we were eliminating the NICS? Get real. However, the NICS as it stands currently is a broken system, it needs an overhaul. Too many agencies aren’t reporting to it properly, mental health information is limited, and even technologically and administratively, it needs serious updating. Also, for this overall system to work, the NICS needs to be bulletproof. All the previous issues mentioned, and more, need to be fixed. As is current, NICS cannot keep records of checks. It will remain an independent database from the rest of the system.

    Class 1 applicants will need to pass the basic NICS check and the training outlined later.

    Class 2 applicants will need to pass an expanded NICS check, meaning they must obtain or show a previously obtained mental health competency evaluation as well as the expanded arms handling training.

    Class 3 adds a deep dive similar to the current class 3 procedure as well as you having the honor of the BATF visiting you on an occasional basis, just as they do now. And more training, of course.

    These requirements have to follow rule 2, just below.

    It should also be made clear that, while there is a strong emphasis in these descriptions on allowing military arms not currently allowed, it should not be misconstrued that only military arms are allowed; as is currently common, what ever the market desires within the guidelines is allowed.

    For what its worth, this additional required training could provide an excellent opportunity for our military veterans returning to civilian life, as many have already found success in the training field which will obviously grow with this system and they are some of the most qualified and experienced available, especially for the new class 3 arms category.

    Guidelines for the mental health requirements (for all three classes) will need to be hashed out by those qualified to do so, but class 1 will not require an evaluation, only that there are no reported issues in the NICS. But remember, metal health reporting is one of the areas that will be part of the NICS overhaul.

    2. This rule is both extensive and critical. It has several aspects but is all consolidated into this single rule for reasons that will become clear. It’s kind of the 2nd for the new 2nd. Meaning no infringements in or on the system and it applies to the entire system (I will be referring to it occasionally as simply “rule 2”).

    All license classes are “shall issue.” No “demonstrating a need.” Our rights don’t require a need. If you pass the above checks and training, you get your license; end of discussion. No costs, restrictions, provision, or anything else can be put forth or created that is unreasonable and amounts to a backdoor infringement. There are several aspects of the system that can be abused, but this rule applies throughout to prevent that. It’s the rule that protects the other rules. If a restriction is not expressly included in the passed final draft, it cannot be put forth later if it violates this rule or any other, including the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights. This is our blanket CYA rule to prevent shysters from putting forth restrictions we may not think of ahead of time while also providing a safety check for any changes that do need to be made later. It also requires any guidelines or requirements within or related to the system to be outlined or advised by experts in the respective field. Bureaucrats don’t get to make rules on subjects they know little about.

    3. This is the rule that provides limited cases for modifications to the system with just the normal, but entire, legislative process. Executive Orders are not allowed. Presidential vetoes may be allowed, but only in cases of infringements (they would violate rule 2 anyway, so its redundant). The allowable modifications are only to update the system for newer technologies as already, or will be later, mentioned within. Things such as the MPT updates, streamlining the system for efficiency, new identification technologies, or administrative updates. Don’t forget rule 2, it applies here also.

    4. The public sector will also not be able to violate the system. We are currently dealing with public companies refusing to service other companies because they are pro 2nd and/or are a manufacturer of arms. A private/public company should not and cannot be forced to do something outside their scope or abilities, but they also should not discriminate against a customer because they just don’t like what they do or who they are. Obviously, this in reference to the large banks pulling their funding to arms manufacturers and the teachers union giving Wells Fargo an ultimatum, however they are just current examples. This is a tricky subject to legislate and beyond my area of expertise, so I don’t want to put forth anything in relation to it now but did want to bring it up to get ideas from those so inclined.

    5. Public carry (open or CCW) is limited to class 1 arms regardless of the license class held. Exceptions are the obvious ones; transport for lawful purposes and commerce or if the arm is inherent to the item (you’re not required to remove the GAU-1 from your A-10 before going for a flight). However, certain other restrictions are obvious ones as well. You don’t get to drive your M1A1 down Main Street, turret or no, but you do get to transport it to and from a range on a trailer. Just as you need to follow FAA rules with your A-10, you have to follow the DOT rules with your M1A1. A note on these and other Class 3 arms; the FAA and DOT, for example, cannot impose restrictions that amount to backdoor infringements on these arms because those would violate rule 2.

    6. Safety rules apply to all classes; see below for detailed explanations of the safety rules.

    7. All classes require fingerprinting, DNA, and any other personal identification technologies such as facial recognition or whatever future tech becomes available. I am reluctant about this rule as it comes awfully close to Orwellian. However, this system allows nearly unfettered access and use of arms and besides, if the applicant is law-abiding, and plans to continue to be so, they should have nothing to fear. And remember, this system does not have a database in the normal sense which we must avoid.

    8. The process of obtaining a license can be done through the application process detailed within by the BATF by first applying online, through telephone, a smartphone app, or any possible method not yet devised, followed by an in-person portion of the application for completing the physical identification requirements. These can be completed at police departments, DMV offices, or arms dealer’s stores. These physical identification checks are required to be completed as quickly as technologically possible. Currently, the resources for running fingerprints and testing and running DNA are overburdened and lacking, but the technology exists to complete these tasks much faster, but funding has been restricted. The enormous backlog of unprocessed sexual assault evidence collection kits (aka, rape kits), is proof of this and a national tragedy. The implementation of this system will require these systems to be upgraded and made into a streamlined and easily accessible system. The preapplication part of the process may be omitted and the entire process completed in-person but will be required to be an available option to allow a person to begin the NICS check process to save them and issuers time and provide convenience, especially useful for those wishing to obtain class 2 or 3. Due to the increased requirements, only police stations, DMV, and BATF locations will be required to provide the entire process on location, however arms dealers are encouraged, if only to provide a convenient and positive service for their potential customers.

    9. Due to the time restraints that will exist until technology improves to the point of “on the spot” application processing, during the transition process, or in cases of temporary system slowdowns, a process will be allowed in cases of urgent need. This will be restricted to class 1 licenses only and may include methods such as law enforcement verification of identity and notification of the arms dealer of the applicant’s choice. A temporary paper license will be provided for possession reasons only, no other transfers are allowed, to or from. In these cases, no “need” will be required but the application process must be fully begun, meaning all tests and checks possible completed and only those requiring extended processing time not required to be completed at the time; however, NICS is not exempt, it must be completed. The dealer, and only the dealer, will hold record of the transaction, including arm transferred, until such time that the license is issued and verified. If license is denied, which should only be possible for DNA or fingerprint test failure at current technological abilities and would mean criminality and revocation, law enforcement is notified, and arm must be surrendered or removed, and will also likely result in arrest. This “temporary” license process may be abused by those that are simply impatient, but the “no wait” process provides a vitally important option for those such as victims of domestic violence in need of immediate self-defense protection. Due to the checks still required and the collection of numerous identifying attributes, criminals should have no desire to attempt to take advantage of this temporary process (it is also more advanced than our current system).

    10. Once obtained, the license never expires or requires renewal but, similarly to a driver’s license, it needs to be updated if there are any changes such as home address, name changes, or your pic no longer reflects your appearance. A reasonable time allowance will be provided to make such changes.

    11. It can be revoked for qualifying criminal convictions or gross negligence. Current laws regarding this are pretty good, but not perfect, they will need some revisions. There will also be an appeal process provided, but it will be limited in what acts and violations can be expunged. The current process to expunge a record can provide guidance, but it too needs reform.

    12. There cannot be any absurd fees, costs, or taxes associated with its application or upkeep; hello again, Rule 2. Reasonable administrative fees for license obtainment or updating is allowed, as well as tax for running the system. None of the fees or taxes can be “for profit;” but are also not required to take a loss, either. Adjustments to the fee structure will be changed periodically to reflect changes in costs of technology, inflation, labor, etc. Additional details about fees and taxes are below.

    13. Certain types of arms will be classified as “no license needed.” These can be debated for now, but obvious examples would be knives, some or all tasers, bow and arrow (but maybe not crossbows?), non-weapon arms, etc. Maybe even muzzle loaders and/or antiques?

    14. Any U.S. citizen not otherwise restricted (felons, mentally unstable, etc.) can obtain. They do not need to be a U.S. born citizen, but they do need to have obtained citizenship. No green cards, etc. When a foreign-born citizen applies for a license their NICS check will expand to include any previous countries they resided in. Something like this already occurs when they apply for citizenship, but the NICS check will verify and complete any other pertinent checks necessary. The immigration system is a mess and we’re not opening that can of worms here, but if someone loves this country enough to come and join us, they get our rights too. Remember, rights are not granted, they’re inherent. Other countries restrict rights, we don’t. And yes, rule 2 is present… Rule 2 is everywhere. There is a possible issue here in regard to rule 5 of the following section and prohibited persons, but only in regard to the difficulties a licensed person would have in knowing if the person is prohibited.

    15. Current laws concerning use, manufacturer, sales, and import/export are usable blueprints for the new system. There are things that need some revision, but obvious rules are obvious. No running around shooting your gun into the air in the middle of town, pulling your Glock out because someone cut you off on the highway, or tossing your AK in a grocery bag for your checked luggage on your next flight. We are a civilized society.

    16. Any other restriction or provision deemed necessary but not included here, as long as it does not conflict with rule 2’s protections. This is open ended for now, only because as mentioned, this is the first draft of this system. As also mentioned, the system can be changed and/or amended after adoption if deemed necessary provided the change follows the rules and/or goes through the process required for such changes. In simple terms, this means that any future laws must either not violate any rules within (rule 2) unless expressly allowed (rule 3); OR said proposed law or modification that does violate ANY rule within must pass through the entire same process that is required to amend the Constitution as well as a citizen popular vote with large majority requirement (not just 51%) and a public audit to ensure accuracy. No future change to the system, no matter how minor, may be put forth with or as an addition to an unrelated bill. It cannot have “pork,” nor can it be, ”pork.” That ought to be universal law anyway but, I don’t want to get greedy. Also, the restriction on state/local restrictions or laws is absolute and forever. Even if the system becomes heavily amended or completely redone. As long as the Constitution stands, that stands. Make it an irrevocable amendment to the Constitution if need be, but it is absolutely critical. They would ruin the system (as they have already ruined the 2nd) and removing the possibility removes the incentive. Too many politicians are shysters; no need to invite trouble.



    Description and guidelines of the system in practice.

    1. The physical license itself is similar to a current driver’s license. It can also be updated to reflect future technologies that may make physical licenses obsolete or with advanced anti-counterfeit measures. It will have the holder’s name, address, a unique assigned number, picture, and/or any other identifying character in use currently or in the future.

    2. The assigned license number is randomly generated. It must not be traceable or correspond to anything so as to prevent someone from using a found or guessed number to discover anything about the holder it is assigned to.

    3. A pin number will be associated with the licensee. This will be an additional security measure to provide protection against counterfeit licenses used with a stolen or guessed license number. The pin will be created by and only known to the licensee. The validity checking process, regardless of method, must allow the holder to enter their pin in secret, including to the other member of the transaction. A secure method of pin recovery or reprogram with required proper identification will be included.

    4. Obtaining an arm requires the seller (dealer or individual) to verify the recipient has a valid license, including appropriate class for the arm. The new NICS system no longer requires the full check as is current law. The seller simply checks that the license is valid through a telephone hotline, internet lookup, a smartphone app, or any future method not yet devised. This verification process is as simple and fast, and is legally required to be, as it is for a police officer to check a driver’s license on the side of the road. Failures of the system (breakdowns) will delay the transaction because verification must be made, but due to improved technology this should not be an issue and there should be provisions to mitigate such failures up to and including penalties for the agency in charge. As mentioned above, the NICS will get a full overhaul which will include reliability upgrades.

    5. Exceptions made for obvious situations. Family/friends going to a range, hunting, etc., do not require the borrower to have a license, because that would exclude people who are otherwise allowed (would pass the license process) but may simply have not yet gone through the process, such as new shooters. Range rentals would also be covered. But like a class 1 J license, a licensed adult will need to be present during such regular activities. However, this also includes restrictions as is similar now for sharing with or transferring to someone who is known to be prohibited. There are also penalties for individuals who hide or deceive the fact they are prohibited from the person they are borrowing from during such activities. There will also be some reasonable exceptions relating to the “in the presence of” rules. Some of the current laws are overreaching. For example, a prohibited person will be able to ride in the car or visit the home of a licensed person without either of them being in violation, regardless of knowledge. Obviously, there will need to be guidelines regarding things like how the arm is being controlled at the time; is it holstered, sitting on the coffee table, in the glove box? This aspect will need some work. A non-licensed person may use an available arm for self-defense without the requirement of a licensed individual being present. This also allows household members to have access to locked weapons for the purposes of self-defense. A prohibited person using an available arm for lawful self defense creates a paradox that will need further debate and may need to be handled by the justice system on a case by case basis, with only some rough guidelines provided by the system.

    6. The database (oh boy, here we go…). The database can only be used in very specific ways and only contains very specific information. It will also need an independent agency (“the agency”) to maintain it to avoid abuse. The database and its agency are not considered federal, similarly to the U.S. Postal Service, it is an independent agency of the U.S. government. Employees of this agency will be thoroughly vetted including whatever lie detection process is the most accurate available at the time or any other vetting process we deem needed now or in the future. These employees will need to be monitored for their entire career at the agency. They will need to be very well compensated to provide incentive to both agree to the rigorous vetting process and to prevent dishonesty or espionage, as well as the severe consequences for violations. Espionage is a capital crime for national security, it must apply to espionage of its citizens as well. Obviously, we don’t need to go that far for minor infractions or accidents though. Of course, human employees will always be susceptible to coercion for either financial gain or through fear of harm, so a clause for the implementation of artificial intelligence will be mandatory once it is a viable alternative. Viable means trustworthy and secure. Full AI isn’t necessary for this task, but I don’t think what we have currently is sufficient, though it is outside my area of expertise. Audits will be conducted by other public agencies to keep the agency honest and this includes the employees themselves being checked and tests of its security (physical and technological). The Fourth Amendment obviously applies to the database without exception but adds even more restriction beyond just the fourth. It also needs to be able to be audited by the public, not just public agencies. This is an excellent place to use blockchain technology. It will contain the license holder’s required personal information and no more. It will not contain any arms registration except for Class 3 only arms, and the manufacturer and dealer endorsements for the BATF’s purposes, but also restricts their use of it. The agency provides the necessary information for them to conduct their inspections and nothing else. To check a license’s validity only the unique number is looked up and pin entered, and the database keeps no record of such lookups. Is the license valid or revoked? That’s it. The only way for the personal identifying information to be accessed would be in situations where something such as DNA is found at a crime scene and the test brings up that person’s information. These searches are also restricted; they can only be conducted with a warrant and the warrant can only be issued if the unknown sample was not in another database and there is reason to believe it may belong to a licensed arms holder (e.g., a victim beaten with a baseball bat doesn’t qualify unless a credible witness saw the suspect also had a gun). Obviously, a person subject to revocation is another qualifying access. If any arms that are classified as class 3 trickle down to class 2 or 1, their records are purged from the database completely, including links to the owner. If a holder decides to voluntarily relinquish their license, they are removed from the database, but may have their profile and other identifiers (fingerprints, DNA, etc.) transferred to a different database, such as the FBI crime data base. A person can’t just relinquish to avoid getting caught for a crime being planned or one committed that has not been fully investigated yet. No outside government agents or agencies may access the database in any way. Only vetted employees of the agency may access it, and only to the information necessary to complete the particular task at hand. The computer software for the database must be coded to prevent abuse of access. It must also be coded to allow auditing without accessing the personal information; auditing coders can read the code to ensure there is nothing that allows prohibited access or storage of unauthorized information or anything else not allowed. There needs to be segregation of the information in the database to prevent internet hacking. This would mean only the license numbers and their validity will be on servers connected to the internet. All personal information, class 3 required registrations, and dealer/manufacturer endorsement information is stored on offline servers only. When that information is needed as outlined within the system’s allowances, they will be accessed by the agency personal and then relayed to the authorized persons. The request and relay of said information can be done through electronic means, including the internet, but the information must be encrypted. The database server and the relaying computer or system must not be connected in any way. The database server must be completely isolated. If that means the agency employees need two computers on their desk, one for database access and one for internet access, so be it, they cannot be connected, or able to be connected (no cheating with a USB cable). There should be a proprietary method of connecting to the database for things such as the agency’s use and maintenance and for the auditor’s needs so as to prevent unauthorized access with devices that can be used to steal information or hack the database. A failsafe will also be coded that would shut the database server down instantly if any unauthorized access is attempted. We may or may not (I see no harm though) allow anonymized information for statistical research purposes. Such information would be limited to simply things such as number of licenses obtained, class breakdown, minimal geographical stats, and basics like these. We know, and studies prove, that gun control only hurts the law abiding; this allowed information will simply reinforce that and give rock hard proof that the system works. Or it won’t, and we’ll have to agree to make it work, but it won’t likely come to that. Call it our “we told you so” allowance for the antis.

    7. Updates to the database in the future are required for improvement of the database’s security, auditability, insulation from abuse, or any other aspect that benefits the citizens, NOT the government. The AI mentioned above would be an example. Upgrades that streamlines the agency’s use or maintenance of the database is also allowed if it doesn’t conflict with the other requirements. Obviously, it needs to be viable and not introduce any issues and needs to be “in the spirit” of the database’s purpose. We can’t foresee future technologies, but they can’t be ignored either. For example, if we were doing this twelve years ago, we would want now want blockchain technology to be integrated into the system for database transparency reasons. Just as we didn’t know back then that it would be created, something else not yet created may be available in the future. A cost to benefit analysis will need to be done on such upgrades, and there will need to be guidelines for them also. Obviously, we don’t want to spend the combined GDP of ten small countries just to provide some feel-good vibes to a few extreme outliers, but the government can’t make excuses to refuse upgrades either. Bureaucracy is one of the slowest entities known to man; we need to have a provision requiring it to get things done that are of benefit to the system and the people. A petition system that requires government action may be put in place to take care of this.

    8. The class 3 registration and BATF inspection process is limited to arms only subject to class 3 restriction. Just because someone has a class 3 license does not mean they have to register or report arms that only require a class 1 or 2 or have them inspected (including facilities). The BATF inspections are limited to checking that you still possess said class 3 arms and they are safely used and stored. Due to the nature of many class 3 arms, safely used also pertains to being in good working order if they are being used. If they are not in good working order they cannot be used and must be repaired before they can be, and a reinspection is required. There is no requirement to surrender them or anything like that and “good working order” can’t be onerous because that would violate rule 2. Any significant repairs need to be completed properly and with proper parts used and they will need to be reported to the BATF and any other agency required that pertain to that particular arm (e.g. FAA for A-10). Routine maintenance does not require notification or inspection unless that maintenance entails disassembly of major components. For significant class 3 arms, (planes, tanks, etc.) reinspection of the entire arm is not necessary, just repaired components. However, in situations where it makes sense, a full inspection is allowed. Such situations could include timing, such as if it has been some time since the last inspection, reducing manhours and costs. Inspections can be randomly called upon but cannot be so frequent as to become an infringement. For arms that have required inspections from other agencies (FAA), BATF only needs to inspect what pertains to it or is not inspected by the other agency. Again, to reduce costs and time.

    9. If you transfer or lose the class 3 arm (theft, drop them in the ocean, etc.) you must report it. They have the right to investigate the loss and can impose penalties if you are found negligent. Seems harsh, but we are talking about military level ordinance here. No “boating accidents.” Details about these guidelines will need to be worked out but they still have to pass the rule 2 check.

    10. Dealer and manufacturer endorsements are exactly what they sound like. If you are a dealer or manufacturer you must have the proper endorsement of the proper class for your business. To reiterate from earlier, class 2 dealer can only sell class 2 and 1 arms, Class 3 can sell it all. Class 2 manufacturers are smaller and/or boutique manufacturers or parts manufacturers and Class 3 manufacturers are full scale manufacturers. The class 2 arms manufacturer limits can be determined later. Exception details can also be determined later for situations such as personal use parts manufacturing (the home shop hobbyist) and the like.

    One of the largest arguments we hear against arms ownership/use are the accidents of both the safety variety as well as the loss to restricted persons (theft, illegal transfer, etc.). Here are the rules to minimize them and help convince the antis to accept the system:

    1. Officially recognized safety and use training is mandatory. There will be a system in place to provide most of this automatically as part of the education system, but during the transition period, adults will need to attend classes to “catch up.” What does all that mean? It begins in elementary school. Children will be educated on safety beginning in their first months of schooling (kindergarten or pre-school if they attend). This has been lacking in our education system and we’ve lost too many young lives from avoidable accidents of all kinds. History has also shown that not all parents are diligent in this subject and so it needs to become the responsibility of the public. Yeah, it reeks of socialism, but we’re talking about the safety of children, surly we can make an exception. It is also not restricted to just safety in arms and it will be tiered based on the age (school grade) of the children. For example, the youngest ones are simply taught that certain things (arms, pill bottles, cleaners under the kitchen sink, unattended swimming pools, etc.) are dangerous and to be avoided. As they advance, they are taught further details and aspects, going so far as first aid training or anything else prudent. It will need to become detailed at the higher tiers, because as has been shown, simply telling children to avoid something or making it “taboo” only makes them curious and want it more (how well has the push for abstinence worked? Not very). It does not need to become a complete additional school subject, just an extra that can be added here and there throughout the school year. This education also needs to be across the board. No exempting kids because their parents don’t have arms or anything like that. We’ve become a society of snowflakes, and that has helped no one, least of all the children. As mentioned, during the time of transition, those who are already out of school will need to take a safety class, tailored to adults and compressed, before they can apply for a license. It can be an added part of the training for obtaining licensure. This can also be used for those who did not attend or complete school. Our national education system is a joke and needs serious reform, but this isn’t the place for it, although I wouldn’t be against adding it as a requirement with maybe a deadline to meet. We’ll see.

    2. To obtain a license, the applicant must attend and successfully complete a course teaching basic arms safety, handling, and procedures (including legal) in addition to the general safety as discussed in #1. These courses are already common for CCW and will be proportionate to the level of license class applied for. However, remember, rule 2 is everywhere.

    3. Arms must be properly and safely stored. Guidelines for this will need hashing out as well, but here are some basics. Arms must be secure (locked up) except for those in use (duh) or are the possessor’s primary defense arm. Those excepted by that still need to be safely in their possession, meaning they can’t be left unattended if there are children around for example. If you are at your home, you don’t need to have it holstered, but you can’t just toss it on the coffee table and then go off to the bathroom and leave it sitting there with kids around; common sense stuff. Obviously, this is a section that will be enforced after the fact, meaning if you do something like that and nothing happens and no one reports you, you won’t get in trouble (i.e., big brother won’t be watching), but if you do get caught or there is an accident, you get charged with a violation in addition to any other charges that may apply such as manslaughter if a kid shoots himself, for example.

    4. While note 3 applies across the board, class 2 & 3 are stricter in the storage aspect. They will require approved storage/locking devices proportionate to the class of arm. Because class 2 has no inspection or proof requirements, this also is an aspect that will be enforced after the fact or if discovered. Class 3 arms do entail inspections by BATF, so obviously there is front side enforcement. These rules only require inaccessibility to the arm by unauthorized persons. Rule 2 applies… again; no requiring a million-dollar safe for a Glock 18, and in fact could have minimal requirements for something like an M1A1; if it needs a key (but not able to be easily by-passed or “hotwired”) to operate, then that would meet its requirement for being “inaccessible” even if its just sitting in your back yard. We should also have some basic requirements relating to “appearance.” Something like not allowing a tank to be sitting in your driveway in the middle of suburbia. I despise HOAs but let’s be real, it would be weird and maybe disturbing to some to drive through an otherwise regular neighborhood and see that for many people (I would geek out, but I’m not most people). Remember, we are a civilized society.

    Implementation and upkeep of the system. Most of this is obvious or already discussed, but here are some additional administrative aspects such as funding. Due to the simplification this system provides and its elimination of future debates and legislation, many costs associated with the 2nd will be drastically reduced and/or eliminated. However, some will increase or be newly created.

    1. Implementation is straightforward; the plan gets revised until a final draft is agreed upon, and the normal legislative process does its thing. The only other stipulation as mentioned previously is that no pork can be added to this bill.

    2. The updating of the NICS system and the new agency created to run it will obviously be expensive. They should also be the agency in charge of issuing the licenses, further insulating the system from government abuse or manipulation, however, the BATF will likely be in charge of investigating class 3 applicants, as they do now for NFA arms.

    3. The BATF will need additional funding to carry out their duties related to the system. No more tax stamps; but they’ll need a way to cover that.

    4. Funding for the independent public agency in charge of oversight and auditing of the system and the BATF (because they also have shown to be untrustworthy) will also be a large expense.

    5. State and local expenses are virtually eliminated. This system and its subsequent bill eliminates all non-federal responsibilities other then local law enforcement duties, which are basically unchanged or minimally so with exception of applications they process. They would receive a reimbursement of costs through the application fee, however.

    6. Many federal expenses will end up being similar or reduced with the system. Remember, the database and agency are not part of the federal government.

    7. Minimal future legislative debate or action will be needed or even possible, eliminating the expenses wasted there.

    8. Because of note 7, lobbying organizations on both sides will be nearly eliminated. The NRA can go back to only promoting safety and such and the antis can do something actually useful. But ultimately, their will be little need. Alternatively, they could be repurposed as the public agencies for oversight.

    9. While fees and taxes can be levied to pay for any difference in costs, ultimately, the cost difference will be little to nothing for individuals, it will simply be a redistribution of the current expenses that are currently being paid through taxes, fees, contributions, and societal costs. Also, with the elimination of tax stamps and the Hughes Amendment, current class 3 (now class 2) arms will drop. Simple supply and demand economics will take hold, as manufacturing will be able to rise to meet demand.

    10. The startup costs to implement the system are higher than the running costs. To help counter that, the implementation of the system also results in a large upfront collection of license fees from the current population (more details below about this). As mentioned, licenses don’t expire, there is no renewal other than updating personal changes or if the holder of a lesser class wants to upgrade. Possible exceptions would be technological ones as mentioned earlier but should not require a fee from the holders. If it is found that class 3 is unsustainable for expenses, then we could add a yearly fee to cover the expense of inspections by the BATF. It must be reasonable though; rule 2 strikes again and remember what class 3 now covers. The inspection fees cannot be “profitable” for the BATF or any government entity, And the frequency, while random, must not be too frequent and must be proportionate to the arm inspected to minimize costs and prevent violations of rule 2.

    11. The transition period. Even though there is no current national database (as it should be) besides for NFA items, and door to door enforcement is not and never will be an option, it is actually pretty simple. Citizens are required to be licensed, but won’t be hunted down, so it is technically voluntary. However, all the other rules still apply including the need to be checked if you want to obtain a new arm and needing one to possess an arm. That means if you are caught for whatever reason, you are in violation. If you want to bury them in your basement and not get the license, well, put on your tinfoil hat and have at it, but you still might be found out. If you are currently on a database such as the BATF’s NFA list, or in a state that currently has one, same rule applies, but you are much more likely to get discovered. Just because this system eliminates all the current laws and regs, doesn’t mean people’s memories will magically be erased. We don’t have the MIB’s memory flashy thing. There will have to also be a provision for surrendering of arms for those that prefer not to be licensed but don’t want to be in violation. Please, please, please don’t do that. The whole purpose of this is to allow citizens to be able to have nearly anything they want with minimal fuss, but there are some outliers that just won’t agree to anything. No financial or other incentive reward can be offered for “ratting” on someone. Prohibited persons are an exception to that. If some entity wants to offer a reward for calling in a rapist or something for violations, have at it. Violent criminals get no mercy or free rides here or anywhere else in this system.

    12. There will be a reasonable grace period to allow both the system to “get up and running” as well as the citizens to do what they need to comply. The date of the grace period can be extended if it is found that there are backlogs and/or “teething problems.” This is a large, complicated, and ambitious system, the transition period needs to be made as painless as possible.

    13. As mentioned in an earlier section, there is probably something I haven’t thought of and will need to be added; stuff like the boring administrative aspects I have no desire to deal with yet and is outside my area of knowledge anyway.



    And that pretty much covers the system itself. So how do we make something like this happen? As I said in the beginning, it needs revision and debate; later including those on the other side. I believe I thought of all the main points needed to make it work, but there is undoubtedly more to add and refine. I was also careful to make it compliant with all supreme court rulings related to the 2nd. Despite my contention that the SCOTUS has shown evidence of political bias, I still wanted to ensure compliancy. Some antis will not believe so, so here is a wiki link for reference: SCOTUS 2nd rulings Note that some district and appellate courts have not been as kind, but I am not referencing them.

    We also need agreement, especially from those on the other side of the debate. We can’t convince everyone, but we don’t have to, only a majority. That begins with education. We have facts and research on our side, but it’s ignored by many. Damn the mainstream media; we must show the truth. Preaching to the choir won’t help, and that is mostly what we do. That must change. Grassroots, mainstream, with or without the media, the word must be spread. Currently, few gun owners are actually active, most just let their gun sit in the closet only to be brought out during hunting season, if ever, and they just change the channel when calls for more restrictions or insults are lobbed our way. Membership numbers of pro-gun organizations prove this. We need to get those folks involved.

    We also need to show restraint. We cannot stoop to the anti’s level of name calling, insults, misleading or outright false fact spreading, or any other uncivilized actions. While “a well regulated militia” may not mean professional, it does include showing professionalism.

    I don’t really care if this plan ever sees the light of day. But I absolutely care that the 2nd lives forever, but it is gasping for breath. It needs an intervention before it breathes no more.


    Thank you.
     
    Jinx0760 likes this.
  2. Hokie_PhD

    Hokie_PhD Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2017
    Messages:
    2,669
    Location:
    Central Virginia
    No
    No and no
    This has so many flaws it isn’t worth the effort to point them all out

    You clearly have no understanding of politics, how much money is vested in the system and how all involved have no desire for anything short of a total victory.
     
    Sarge7402, SharpDog, JTHunter and 2 others like this.
  3. JeffG

    JeffG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2017
    Messages:
    1,594
    Location:
    NE Wisconsin
    Troll alert.
     
  4. Hokie_PhD

    Hokie_PhD Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2017
    Messages:
    2,669
    Location:
    Central Virginia
    Just reading that hurt
    I would have laughed but it’s frightening that someone would even think we’d even entertain such a flawed “ultimate solution”
     
  5. bannockburn

    bannockburn Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    21,392
    The OP is right about one thing: they have waaaay too much time on their hands.

    Seriously, just reading this "proposal" made my brain hurt.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2018
  6. EIB0879

    EIB0879 Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2015
    Messages:
    511
    Location:
    North Texas
    The Founding Fathers kept it simple for a reason.
     
    Demi-human, SharpDog and Hokie_PhD like this.
  7. Godfather'sGun

    Godfather'sGun Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2018
    Messages:
    11
    Wow... No, not a troll in the least. As I said, I'm sick of the constant fighting, and I don't want it to come to the outcomes I explained. I even admitted it's crazy, but what else do you suggest? If you think it's flawed, explain where and how so it can be revised. That's what I asked for and wanted. As for the 2nd being kept simple; how well has that worked out so far? I put everything in there that I did to eliminate all "interpretations" that have continually plagued it and us for two centuries. Spelling everything out eliminates all the BS they say the founders "meant" when they wrote it. If things keep up at the rate they have, what do you think it will look like in another two hundred years?
     
  8. Sistema1927

    Sistema1927 Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,771
    Location:
    "Land of (dis)Enchantment"
    No, just no.
     
  9. MEHavey

    MEHavey Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    Messages:
    3,140
    Location:
    virginia
    ".... license..." by definition abrogates all concept of "...right...."
     
    Bushpilot, D.B. Cooper, BSA1 and 2 others like this.
  10. JeffG

    JeffG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2017
    Messages:
    1,594
    Location:
    NE Wisconsin
    The Constitution is a document to be read, not edited.
     
  11. Redacted

    Redacted Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2012
    Messages:
    46
    Location:
    Mena, Arkansas
    Yep, TROLL ALERT.
    When I see a long post on a political gun issue, I can be pretty much be be sure that it has been written by a liberal gun grabber. I goes with their attitude that gun owners are stupid and must have everything explained to them in incredibly detailed terms.
     
    Sarge7402 and SharpDog like this.
  12. Hokie_PhD

    Hokie_PhD Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2017
    Messages:
    2,669
    Location:
    Central Virginia
    You’re wrong with this too
    There were no issues with the 2nd until Prohibition and when the NFA was enacted. That was the beginning of infringement. The next round happened in the 60s. Hmm and guess what happened to the crime rate?

    The Clinton AWB was a disaster.
    But his wife made it clear she wanted Australian style laws and confiscation. Not to get political but the left has been pushing since then. We were making progress until Vegas.

    The 1st and 2nd are under attack and it’s my opinion that we must fight like no one has ever fought before. We won at the ballot box but our enemies are now doing all they can to fight us any way they can.

    I’m not sure what we do, but your “solution”isn’t it.

    Do you really think it’d pass? Do you have any idea what it would take? For starters you’ll never get enough support, next if you think if it somehow got passed it wouldn’t be modified and hacked up you’re more naive than I think.

    If you truly are one of us then you know that giving anything to our enemies is on,6 going to embolden them and hurt us.
     
    bannockburn and EIB0879 like this.
  13. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,866
    Location:
    Virginia
    I'm willing to listen to all proposals. And, I appreciate the obvious thought and effort that went into this one.

    Yet, after having plowed through this monumental opus, two things leap out at me. Fatal flaws, if you will:

    First, the antigunners will never be satisfied with anything less than complete domestic disarmament. They'll take what they can get now, and come back for more later. That's just the way they operate. They have a vision, and that vision doesn't include any private gun ownership. Therefore, there's a basic lack of a trustworthy negotiating partner on the other side.

    Second, there's no way an agreement now can bind the future. Future legislatures can disregard it. Now, it's theoretically possible for a new gun Amendment to be enshrined in the Constitution, but the chance of that passing is just as slim as that of the current 2nd Amendment being repealed. Not going to happen.

    History shows us the dismal record of "grand compromises" when it comes to vital national issues. Take slavery, for example. There was a string of "compromises," including the original Constitution of 1787, the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and so on. None of these deterred the slaveholders, on the one hand, nor the abolitionists, on the other. The only way it could finally be resolved was through the Civil War.
     
    hso, bannockburn, EIB0879 and 2 others like this.
  14. Godfather'sGun

    Godfather'sGun Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2018
    Messages:
    11
    Finally some real comments that aren't just weak ad hominem attacks. Thank you; seriously, no sarcasm, I knew this would certainly ruffle some feathers (to put it mildly), but I really want to start a conversation about this, at least some of are. Of course I know my Idea is radical and as-is would never get anywhere, that's why I asked for ideas while tossing a bunch out there myself. And of course I know what the other side wants; a complete ban and confiscation. But there are plenty of people on our side and plenty of other people that are moderate and/or basing their beliefs on false facts. and lies.
    I exaggerated a bit when I said the 2nd has been under attack for centuries; I know it was fine until the prohibition era, I apologize for the exaggeration. And it is perfect as written, except that the definition of "well regulated," "militia," "the people," "arms," and "infringed" has been bastardized and ignored since then. So maybe it does need to be spelled out, not for this audience, but for the other audience. I know what it means, you know what it means, but they don't care what it means.
    As it is right now, we have a decent majority in congress, a POTUS that said he is pro 2nd, and a 5-4 majority in the SCOTUS. So why can't we get aggressive and try to get some REAL pro 2nd legislation passed before we lose that majority, maybe even enough to get an amendment they won't be able to screw with later, as we do also have a majority of states on our side. It really doesn't matter how ambitious it is as long as we avoid non-starters and if we have to give the other side something, lets do it in a way that works for us? I'm not saying we should, or would be able to, trick the other side into something, but if we come up with a plan that "technically" gives them what they want, but in a way that benefits us, why not? If nothing else, it will force them to show their true colors which could help us win the moderates sitting on the fence.
    Maybe we just need to get something passed that spells out the 2nd the way it was meant by our Founders. So far all the SCOTUS decisions have either mostly or completely gone our way, or if it didn't, a later decision basically overruled it. So why can't we get it reinforced and at least get rid of the worst restrictions and prevent future ones?
    We can't keep doing what we've been doing, because it isn't working. Just ask our friends in NY, NJ, CA, etc.
     
  15. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,913
    Have you seen the recent statistics about which states are losing population? I'm soon to be one of them (leaving CA for AZ) and frankly I can't wait. Normal people do not want to live in a third-world country and are voting with their feet. Those states will lose their political clout as their population declines.
     
    bikerdoc and EIB0879 like this.
  16. MEHavey

    MEHavey Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    Messages:
    3,140
    Location:
    virginia
    GFS: As soon as the concept of gov't "license" is entered as an all-encompassing restriction to possession of a firearm, "the Right of the People" is dead ...even as a concept.

    Read McCulloch v. Maryland some time for the basic problem: The power to [license] is the power to destroy.

    In effect, your solution to protecting a basic right from gov't incursion... is to write into law the gov't's unfettered power to destroy it.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





    postscriptum: For grins, I just C&P'd Post#1 into WORD: 19 pages/11,000 words.
    This is classic characteristic of the fatal flaw in trying to "define" well-understood Natural Law into legalese.
    pavlovian.jpg
    Lawyers have a Pavlovian response to such products, as a source of endless litigation.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2018
  17. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    4,175
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Welcome to THR, Godfather'sGun! I'm going to operate on the presumption that you're not a troll and that you genuinely mean all of this. Unfortunately, even a more-or-less cursory scanning of it shows me that your proposal has all the signs of leading to decades and decades of protracted litigation. I'll show you some of the problems I have with your proposal.
    Those are some pretty bold claims ("end the debate once and for all," and "remove the need for debates"). While your plan may "not allow for further debate once enacted," that's a bad idea. What makes you think your plan could be flawlessly implemented on a nationwide level on the first try?

    So you're willing to turn to slavery, the official sanction for which ended ~150 years ago, to strip all of the States of their right to regulate weapons within their own borders? Including those states that had already outlawed slavery prior to the Civil War? What about Alaska and Hawaii? They weren't even States until the 20th century. And the regulation of weapons has traditionally been a State or local-level topic. Expect lots of litigation over this.
    For starters, see above. At the same time, this sounds like you want to strip the States of all of their rights. The short story on that book is that it leaves one centralized gov't, which is one of the things the Founders sought to avoid.
    I'm not sure how you got to the conclusion that "make everybody have a license" is compatible with "shall not be infringed." You claim that "there is no real compromise here," but you'd be wrong. You're asking that I be required to get a license to do many things that I already do, legally, without a license. And there's a great deal of this for which I don't think you could possibly get agreement from the anti-gunners.

    Frankly, this just sounds like you want to register gun owners, and not just guns. No, thank you.
    So . . . . . Class 1 requires a license in those states that do not currently require one, and forbids states from determining which zones are the "sensitive places" where guns should not be allowed.
    If a license is required, and I am allowed to share it, . . . . that means I am required to have a federal license to teach my children gun safety. No, thank you. I'd rather tee that one up as a First Amendment violation, thank you very much.
    Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see what bases for revocation you propose. This is a critical issue.
    There's a metric ton of details being skipped over here. Who gets to decide what "common" is and how arms move from Class 2 or above to Class 1?
    Again, this is requiring a license to do things I can already legally do without a license. And somewhere in all of this, I remember seeing something about there not being registration. This just becomes registration of license holders rather than registration of guns. I'm not sure which is worse.
    So now you've gotten to the point of "'for a Class 2, an expanded background check, mental health competency evaluation and mandatory training' is compatible with 'shall not be infringed.'" What do you propose for these standards, and who will get to set them?
    BATFE visits. How nice. Any requirement for probable cause or a warrant? Or will the Class 3 license applicant simply have to waive his Fourth Amendment rights?
    Are you beginning to see the problems with your proposal? Also, are you aware that this restriction would likely violate the First Amendment rights of lawmakers?
    And Engineers have little experience in writing laws. That's why lawmakers hire experts to study things and explain those things to them.
    I'm pretty sure that several of the "protective shielding clauses" you've put around your proposed licensing scheme are going to violate other Constitutional provisions, and this is one of them.
    Please let me know what you would consider to be a "qualifying criminal conviction." Revocation of a license, or the authority to avoid issuing one in the first place, is of critical importance in assessing this plan.
    Which ones? The federal laws, or the state laws that you seem to propose striking in their entirety?
    You're inviting decades of Fourth Amendment litigation with this, and general warrants are constitutionally prohibited.
    Who sets the standards and what do you propose? Chicago already got into trouble with this by requiring training with a range component and then banning ranges. There are plenty of people with kids and jobs who don't really have the time or $ to attend your proposed training. Are you suggesting that they should not be allowed to possess any arms, even in the absence of a criminal history?
    How do you figure? This sounds like a massive overhaul to the current system, which will be very expensive. Unless and until you can produce some solid numbers on what these things currently cost and some reasonably plausible estimate of the costs of implementation and operation, I'll pass on believing this claim.

    And if "the database and agency are not part of the federal government," what in Sam Hill's name will they be?!? You've already said that States and localities won't be allowed to legislate on arms laws, so they can't be State or local appendages. Are you proposing some other Super-Federal Government? And if you are, exactly how do you expect this monstrosity to be funded?
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2018
    hso, entropy, JTHunter and 5 others like this.
  18. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    4,175
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Yes, we do, and I just posted my Pavlovian response.
     
    Jerseykris, SharpDog and Redacted like this.
  19. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,866
    Location:
    Virginia
    I hate to respond to my own post, but there is something more that needs to be said.

    The antigunners have an overarching vision. The pro-gun side, however, has a notable lack of a unifying vision. How many gun owners want to return to the pre-1934 status of zero federal regulation? There are few "2nd Amendment absolutists" and, at any rate, the pro-gun organizations are not openly advocating for turning the clock back to zero. What has happened is that the "Overton window" -- the framework of acceptable debate -- has shifted in the last 85 years so that now, some degree of gun regulation is a given, and we are simply arguing over the degree of such regulation.

    Take something simple like opening the machine gun registry by repealing the Hughes Amendment. Hardly any gun organizations -- certainly not the NRA -- are actively pushing for this, and the NRA wants to sweep MG ownership under the carpet. (Wayne LaPierre to Congress: "machine guns are already illegal.") The gun community is thus complicit in demonizing a segment of itself.

    As the result of this lack of unified vision and sense of purpose, the pro-gun side is always on the defensive, while the antigunners are always on the offensive. There is only one result of this situation, and that is the steady erosion of gun rights. If we don't want to see that happen, the pro-gun side must go on the offensive, and I'm not talking about marginal things like carry reciprocity or the deregulation of silencers. The entire regulatory scheme must begin to be questioned.
     
    hso likes this.
  20. Derek Zeanah

    Derek Zeanah System Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    8,909
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    First, I'd like to commend everyone for the tone of this discussion. To the original poster, it's clear that a lot of thought went into the original post and the concept in general. There were some very clearly identified potential harms listed there - I live in the South and I have to say the divide between rural and urban points of view in this country is greater than it's been in my recollection. There are a lot of people who have reached their breaking point with what they see as over-regulation, and if things get worse on the gun rights front the best case outcome for many is massive noncompliance and civil disobedience. If we were to see things like door-to-door searches for firearms listed on 4473's in that potential future world....well, things would get bad in a hurry. Nobody wants that future.

    To the posters calling the OP a troll, I don't think that's fair. He is assuming good faith on the side of our ideological opponents here, and past experience has shown that this isn't true. A former moderator here wrote this a few years back and I think it summarizes the opinions of many well:

    That's not compromise. It's closer to appeasement. Assuming that those who are ideologically opposed to an armed populace will have fair discussions and negotiations is naivety.

    But that doesn't mean the OP is a troll.

    I'm going to be honest, Alex - this applies to me. I...have difficulty with the idea of any random unhinged individual being able to order hand grenades through the mail. Or Tommy Guns.

    I don't know how that works in a society like ours, where we have broken inner city cultures, and the occasional nutball on psychotropic drugs who decides to shoot up innocent people.

    It could work in a society that was diligent about removing those who can't be trusted with true freedom from society, but we are unwilling to do that. And the realities of living in a large urban area are different than in rural spaces - I have a 100 yard range 50' from my back door, and I love that. Explosives, 20mm canons, incendiaries, and the like are things that are acceptable to own in some places, and that just seem likely to cause big issues if purchased/stored in a 40 story apartment complex.

    So it's tough. And maybe I'm part of the problem, but there you go.

    I have been struggling with this for the last few years. My sister teaches sociology at a large, well-known university in Southern California. I asked her what she truly valued a few years ago and she said "social justice," and I had no idea what that meant.

    I've spent some time researching it and I've become very discouraged and somewhat worried by what's coming from the ideological left nowadays. This isn't the place to discuss it (I'm creating that space though - stay tuned this week!), but we need to better understand our ideological opponents. Significant foundations that underpin western society are under attack. It's not just firearm ownership, it's free speech, capitalism, free thought, and more. It's kind of terrifying.
     
  21. MEHavey

    MEHavey Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    Messages:
    3,140
    Location:
    virginia
    Current liberal view:
    Social Justice Ξ Equal Outcome
    (irrespective of equal input)



    To very man his due is what I would prefer as the definition.
    "...τὸ τὰ αὑτοῦ πράττειν καὶ μὴ πολυπραγμονεῖν δικαιοσύνη ἐστί..."
    goes back as far as Aristotle and Cicero (Suum cuique) as well as Justinian
    iuris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere

    Then... then we might have a constructive discussion of what value a man brings to
    the table to be owed his due outcome.

    Derek: Ask your sister to run a seminar session on that question of "...what is a man due?"
    ... as a means to define a more constructive implementation of Social Justice

    .
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2018
    SharpDog likes this.
  22. GEM

    GEM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    7,263
    Location:
    WNY
    I appreciate the efforts of many, esp. Spats and Derek among others to parse the proposal. There are legit attempts out there to try to come to some common ground that 'allows' firearms ownership with some efforts at safety and not being onerous. It is a hard thing to do.

    Not being a lawyer but a psychologist, I would briefly comment on:

    This is pragmatic horror show beyond the current NICS standards. Granted there have been some pretty bad failures with that standard that need to be addressed. However, requiring mental health competency is something a lay person would throw out (as with some legal issues examined by attorneys) without understand the issue. There is no accepted standard of mental health competency that does not entail intensive testing and judicial hearings. There are no guaranteed predictors of unacceptable or violent behavior that can be applied in general. The best predictors are past violent behavior and overt threats. An evaluation is subject to subjective risks and abuse. The psychiatric and psychological professions, in general, oppose such a standard and have opposed legislation such as the SAFE Act.

    To make tens of thousands of folks go through a judicial hearing for higher tech serves no purpose. We see how horror shows can occur with common guns and calls for intensive mental screening for their purchase. Some of the individuals should have been prevented but there were failures of current processes.

    Not to be belabor the point - we should be able to catch folks with past histories that do predict violence. We cannot proactively examine folks as there is no technology to predict violence that can be generally applied,

    Whitman had a brain tumor that might have contributed to the UT Austin incident. Should we MRI everyone buying a rifle?

    Unless you have read the professional meta-analyses on mental health and violence plus the legal processes for declaring incompetence, please don't throw out a cliche. A side effect - let's say you go to buy a gun and the evaluation is failed, do we lock you up? Take away your ginzu knives and your car?
     
    entropy, Jerseykris, bikerdoc and 3 others like this.
  23. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,866
    Location:
    Virginia
    If someone is truly determined to obtain destructive devices and automatic weapons, he can do so, either legally or illegally. The law-abiding can do so legally, if they have enough money and patience. The "random unhinged individuals" can get these things illegally, if they are prepared to take the risk of getting caught. Making a hand grenade is ridiculously simple -- all you need is a short length of pipe, threaded pipe caps, black powder, and a length of fuse. Whether these things are regulated or not makes no practical difference. Terrorists and bad actors will get them.
     
  24. Derek Zeanah

    Derek Zeanah System Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    8,909
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    I don't disagree with you. I don't know the statute of limitations on such things, so I'll say that "some kids I knew in elementary school" figured out how to make pipe bombs, and even converted them to mortars. In suburban California. Before the Internet. Using things that could be purchased at hardware and automotive stores that didn't arouse suspicion.

    You can't outlaw chemistry, and in the age of Google such things are much more trivial than they used to be. And yet...even though one could make some reasonably effective improvised explosives from recipes online (as the Boston Marathon bombing showed) we still find more people are willing to go through the hoops to find a way to buy firearms and use them to commit mass murder. It's a poorer tool, but that's the way things are.

    I'm inclined the think the sort of person who turns to mass-murder generally isn't the sort of person to demonstrate a lot of initiative and creativity in approaching life's problems, so they use off-the-shelf solutions instead. At least that's how it looks to me. And while claymores and hand grenades have a great deal of usefulness as far as the original intent of the 2nd amendment goes I don't think I'm ready to advocate for legislation that would make them available to anyone who wanted them, anonymously via mail order. Can you imagine the sort of havoc that would create in some of Chicago's more dangerous areas?

    You're absolutely right, and I like to think of myself as a pretty hard-core original-intent 2nd amendment guy. But I'm having a problem with this one.

    Selling such items to folks who can currently buy NFA stuff? No problem. I'm with you there. But the Overton Window has shifted, and I'm not sure you can go back to the way things used to be.
     
    Madcap_Magician likes this.
  25. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,866
    Location:
    Virginia
    One comment about psychological evaluations -- a very wise college professor of mine once told me that there is "something" wrong with everybody, if you dig deeply enough. I'm convinced that the mental health aspect is the Achilles' Heel of gun rights. This is so subjective, and is so susceptible to abuse. If they can't find something wrong with you, they'll find something wrong with your spouse or other member of your household. Then, it's no guns for you!
     
    entropy likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice