Federal Gun Owner License

[theprestige]

Do you feel the same about state ID cards needed for voting?

Can you give an example of a state ID card that is a) needed for voting and b) requires a fee to obtain?

 

[applecorped]

FCC

since when do individual citizens have to get a license from the FCC?

 

[theprestige]

FCC

The FCC licenses use of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is a common resource, and finite. It does not license free speech.

Indeed, it is very similar to a driver's license. No license is required to drive on private property. The license is actually issued to regulate use of public roads. These are fine distinctions, but important ones.

There is a substantial body of case law and statute law dealing with the complex question of how the FCC can properly regulate EM use, without improperly infringing on the rights of citizens to express themselves via EM transmissions. To say that the FCC licenses free speech is simplistic to the point of ignorance, and ignorant to the point of implausibility.

 

[Ladewig]

Would it be possible to discuss just this one issue in a single thread without talking about other issues surrounding gun control and shootings in the US?

What kind of penalties are you going to institute for the guy who inherited his grandpappy's shotgun 20 years ago but doesn't apply for a license?

Can anyone ballpark an estimate for the number of armed Americans who will resist this law and not get the license? Also, how many of those folks would be willing to shoot at LEOs that knock on their door with a search warrant for firearms? My own SWAG on the last group is somewhere between 15,000 and 300,000.
.............
Will there also be a registering of the firearms themselves?

 

[Metullus]

Do you feel the same about state ID cards needed for voting?

Indeed I do. If there is a requirement that an ID be presented in order to vote, that ID should be provided by the state at no cost.

I could see a fee waiver for those of lower income. But, otherwise I think a nominal processing fee would be necessary to at least make sure that people who don't really need it don't flood the system with applications.

I do not believe that anyone should be required to pay a fee in order to exercise a civil right. If there is a requirement that a person must apply for a license it should be done at no cost to the applicant, just as I can register to vote at no cost to me.

Users.

Again, we would be adding an additional cost burden to anyone who wants to exercise a civil right. If we were to implement such a federal licensing procedure we should make it possible for applicants to get the required training at no cost.

Licensed instructors.

Who would be responsible for insuring that there are such instructors available to everyone who is interested in obtaining a license?

Town hall. No need to ever fire a gun at the class or even have live ammo. May need some guns to demonstrate different locks and their proper usage, but that shouldn't be an issue.

Putting aside for the moment the question of whether or not actually firing a weapon should be integral to any safety training, this might work as long as there is a requirement that state and local authorities must make available suitable training facilities. I do not think it reasonable to merely rely on the cooperation of local municipalities (for example San Francisco or Chicago).

Any doctor you see. Would need to fill out a form that swears that they have examined you and detail the reason for their report. For obvious reasons most doctors would be very hesitant to take this action, but when prescribing strong pain-killers or treating a person for depression I think they would want to take precautions. Maybe it should be more limited. When do you think a doctor should enter into the picture to make sure a patient they see with mental health issues is not able to obtain guns and ammo?

I have problems with the idea of my doctor reporting to any government authority on any treatment I might be receiving - and I would hope that my doctor would as well. When I maintained my pilot's license I had regular flight physicals, but these were not performed by my GP. I do not recall that my AME even knew who my GP was. He certainly would not know what medications I was taking if I did not tell him.

 

[Civet]

Any doctor you see. Would need to fill out a form that swears that they have examined you and detail the reason for their report. For obvious reasons most doctors would be very hesitant to take this action, but when prescribing strong pain-killers or treating a person for depression I think they would want to take precautions. Maybe it should be more limited. When do you think a doctor should enter into the picture to make sure a patient they see with mental health issues is not able to obtain guns and ammo?

One of the concerns I have with suggestions like this is that it could potentially lead to people with mental health issues deciding not to seek treatment or being dishonest with their healthcare providers for fear of losing their right to bear arms and losing their medical privacy.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'm okay with this. I would make a few changes.

Free.

If no trainer available, then the license is immediately issued.

You don't need to provide a reason.

Process is shall issue. Review is limited to database reviews and no interviews.

Doctors are limited to same condition as psychologists and can only report a threat.

Automatic weapons become eligible.

 

[Ladewig]

I'm okay with this. I would make a few changes.

Free.

If no trainer available, then the license is immediately issued.

You don't need to provide a reason.

Process is shall issue. Review is limited to database reviews and no interviews.

Doctors are limited to same condition as psychologists and can only report a threat.

Automatic weapons become eligible.

After the initial licensing period ends, what penalties will violators suffer?

 

[Loss Leader]

A license to exercise a Constitutional right is obscene.

Your first step will have to be repealing the 2ndA.

You need a license to hold a rally or a parade. You should need a license to hold a weapon that has enough bullets to ruin a parade.

 

[smartcooky]

Agreed. It works better when we tell them how to run theirs.

 

[smartcooky]

I do not believe that anyone should be required to pay a fee in order to exercise a civil right.

You have the right to drive a vehicle. Should your drivers license be free? Should you even need to have a licence?

You have the right to own your own home. Is this free of any fees?

Just because you have the right to something does not mean you get to exercise that right for free.

The Second Amendment of your constitution gives you the right to bear arms...

"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."

Please point out the part which says this right is gratis,

Please point out the part which precludes the idea that you might need a licence to exercise this right.

 

[Border Reiver]

The concept of licensing is not directly opposed to the "well regulated" portion of the amendment.

 

[WildCat]

You need a license to hold a rally or a parade. You should need a license to hold a weapon that has enough bullets to ruin a parade.

You don't need a license to hand out flyers on the street.

Rallies and parades use public resources (streets, parks, etc) which means others can't use them while the rally or parade is going on. What public resources does a gun carrier use or prevent others from using?

Aren't you a lawyer?

Would you support requiring a license to get an abortion? To write a blog? To post on this forum?

 

[WildCat]

You have the right to drive a vehicle.

No, you don't.

The concept of licensing is not directly opposed to the "well regulated" portion of the amendment.

That's not what "well regulated" means, nor is militia membership a requirement for having the right to keep and bear arms. That's why it says "the people" instead of "the militia". And an amendment allowing troops under the command and control of the government to be armed is just absurd, that's not the purpose.

 

[theprestige]

The concept of licensing is not directly opposed to the "well regulated" portion of the amendment.

Usage changes over time. There's some debate about whether 'well regulated' then means teh the same thing it does today.

'properly equipped' versus 'properly restricted'.

Also, current interpretations completely decouple the militia clause from the clause that recognizes the right and bars its infringement. Any conclusions that depend on the idea of having a militia are probably going quite wide of the actual dispute.

 

[Brainiac]

You have the right to drive a vehicle. Should your drivers license be free? Should you even need to have a licence?

You have the right to own your own home. Is this free of any fees?

Just because you have the right to something does not mean you get to exercise that right for free.

The Second Amendment of your constitution gives you the right to bear arms...

"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."

Please point out the part which says this right is gratis,

Please point out the part which precludes the idea that you might need a licence to exercise this right.

Please show us where the US Constitution gives citizens the right to drive a vehicle or own a home. I must have missed that the last time I read it.

 

[Loss Leader]

You don't need a license to hand out flyers on the street.

Rallies and parades use public resources (streets, parks, etc) which means others can't use them while the rally or parade is going on. What public resources does a gun carrier use or prevent others from using?

Aren't you a lawyer?

Would you support requiring a license to get an abortion? To write a blog? To post on this forum?

Shooting people who then require medical attention drains the resources available to treat people who didn't get shot, as well as undivided money the state pays for medical care of the uninsured and for disability. It also removed people from the labor pool, decreasing the total wealth the nation can generate.

 

[HenryLee]

Shooting people who then require medical attention drains the resources available to treat people who didn't get shot, as well as undivided money the state pays for medical care of the uninsured and for disability. It also removed people from the labor pool, decreasing the total wealth the nation can generate.

Take it up with the people who shoot people. That's not everyone who owns a gun.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You have the right to drive a vehicle. Should your drivers license be free? Should you even need to have a licence?

You have the right to own your own home. Is this free of any fees?

Just because you have the right to something does not mean you get to exercise that right for free.

The Second Amendment of your constitution gives you the right to bear arms...

"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."

Please point out the part which says this right is gratis,

Please point out the part which precludes the idea that you might need a licence to exercise this right.

All of that sounds like an infringement, right?

 

[BobTheCoward]

The concept of licensing is not directly opposed to the "well regulated" portion of the amendment.

The entire first part of the amendment is merely a reason. It is not written in a way that it applies any limit to anything. I can concede that the situation in the first part are no longer real and actively harmful to the union, but that doesn't enable any power to infringe on the right to bear arms.