Federal Gun Owner License

[Jrrarglblarg]

Where do I get my free speech license?

From the FCC if your free speech exceeds about 25mW of AM or FM, and from the city if your free speech is covered by sign codes.


If a license is required to buy ammunition, that creates a control point for enforcement, which is something I think we need. Magazine capacity limits and aethetics-merit gun limitations do jack to prevent anything.

My amendment to this license suggestion: turn all administration of it over to the NRA. Also, separate license classes for separate firearm types.

And let the wise and honest NGO running the program figure out how to help poor people afford a basic license for home defense.

 

[Nessie]

A license to exercise a Constitutional right is obscene.

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

Why? "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". At the moment who has guns is clearly not "well regulated" as the constitution has instructed and so the present set up is unconstitutional.

CCW permits are not unconstitutional. The suggestion is to expand that well regulated and successful system to all gun holders.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Why? "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". At the moment who has guns is clearly not "well regulated" as the constitution has instructed and so the present set up is unconstitutional.

CCW permits are not unconstitutional. The suggestion is to expand that well regulated and successful system to all gun holders.

See my post at the end of the last page. There is nothing actionable for laws in the part you quoted.

 

[Nessie]

My point is that the Second did not intend the disaster that is US guns and that a permit system is not unconstitutional.

 

[ThunderChunky]

My point is that the Second did not intend the disaster that is US guns and that a permit system is not unconstitutional.

I agree as long as the permit system is not unreasonably burdensome. The amendment certainly intended for guns to be used for hunting and self defense outside of a militia though.

 

[3point14]

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.

This objection alone means that there will never, ever, be any way of keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

 

[3point14]

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.

But the current intepretation could be changed (by the US supreme court?) and still be in line with the wording of the amendment. It wouldn't require amending or repealing, just a different intepretation.

 

[Dr. Keith]

A license to exercise a Constitutional right is obscene.

In many states one must present a picture ID to vote. Those IDs are not free unless you can show need. While I'm not really enamored with the idea, this has not been found to be unconstitutional.

I think what I am proposing is similar.

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

I don't think so, but I'm not a 2A expert.

You have a pretty good knowledge of the relevant case law. You probably know the cases better than I do. Which 2nd Amendment holding by the SCOTUS would prevent such a system?

 

[Dr. Keith]

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

Where a photo ID is needed to vote there is typically a no-fee option for those in poverty. I would suggest following that lead.

Or, take the fee out if that is the largest stumbling block. I didn't imagine the fee as raising too much money, just preventing abuse of the submittal system. Other means may be used to prevent such abuse.

 

[applecorped]

From the FCC if your free speech exceeds about 25mW of AM or FM, and from the city if your free speech is covered by sign codes.


If a license is required to buy ammunition, that creates a control point for enforcement, which is something I think we need. Magazine capacity limits and aethetics-merit gun limitations do jack to prevent anything.

My amendment to this license suggestion: turn all administration of it over to the NRA. Also, separate license classes for separate firearm types.

And let the wise and honest NGO running the program figure out how to help poor people afford a basic license for home defense.

That tortured logic is a good example of why this would fail stunningly.

 

[Dr. Keith]

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.

That is an interesting point and I think I agree with you. Let's see if we can tackle this issue head on.

The License would only be required to possess guns or ammo off private property or to transport guns or ammo. If you keep your gun on your own property and load your own shells or use existing stocks of ammo and assorted supplies, then no need for a license.

But, if you buy guns or ammo you would need a license. If you transport guns or ammo you would need a license. If you ever intend to remove a gun or ammo from your property you would need a license.

 

[Beerina]

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.

Well, there is the perennial "Hush Rush" bill, where, in the name of free speech, certain factions want any station broadcasting Rush Limbaugh, or any other conservative for that matter, to brodcast equal hours of a liberal show.

These shows, of course, are vastly less popular, and the real goal is to cause financial pain to radio stations by stripping them of 3 hours of still much more profitable but non-Rush hosts.


The point is almost moot nowadays with Internet simulcasts and podcasts, where the government cannot use claims of limited bandwidth.

 

[Dr. Keith]

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?

I don't know. If it stays put on private property my updated response to theprestige would say no license required. I would think there would have to be a long phase in with a bunch of warnings before you start enforcement.

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.

Most gun owners I know are fine signing up for CHL classes and getting a state license to carry concealed. I'm not sure why this would be viewed differently, but you are probably right that there are some that would resist strenuously.

Are we supposed to be happy that there are folks who would be willing to shoot at LEOs that knock on their door with a search warrant for firearms? Are those the responsible gun owners we should tailor our laws to accommodate? Or are those powder kegs that we should be worried about?

.............
Will there also be a registering of the firearms themselves?

I don't see the as a constructive idea. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. We just need to be a bit more careful about which people actually have guns.

 

[Dr. Keith]

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 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.

I think I've come around on that. Free is fine by me, but that will increase the cost of the registration system to weed out abuse. Not terrible.

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.

I have a feeling that there would be a lot of low cost to no cost options for such training hosted at guns shops and gun ranges. I would be happy if there was a maximum fee that could be charged and support for those who need it.

Also, I've changed my thoughts on how this would apply to those who keep a gun at home and it never leaves their property.

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

The marketplace? Where I live there is no requirement that there be vehicle inspector in every town, and yet there typically is a shop offering vehicle inspections in almost every town. They don't make much (if any) money off the service, but it brings people through the doors so they offer it.

What do you suggest? Maybe a Circuit Training Group that travels through liberal areas of the country providing training where there are two few gun owners to pull in a class.

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).

True. I'm trying to think how that would work, but I really don't know if such an imposition is necessary.

If firing is not required an interested group could just rent out a conference room at a hotel. Or church basement.

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.

Doctors already will report you to CPS if they think you are abusing your child or even the DMV is they think your driving license should be revoked. As I understand it they are very loathe to do either of these and in fact the former had to be made a legal obligation to get any real compliance.

But, I am very uncomfortable with a doctor prescribing a drug that they know will impair the judgement of their patient without taking steps to remove firearms from that patient's environment. Same with patients who have exhibited severe mental illness.

I don't see doctor's abusing this authority, but what safeguards would make you feel better about this?

 

[Dr. Keith]

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.

I agree completely, but I don't know how else we can keep the mentally ill from obtaining guns. Really, I am open to suggestions on this.

 

[Dr. Keith]

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

Me too!

Free.

Sounds good.

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

How about if no trainer is available within the county within the next 90 days the license will issue at the end of the 90 days? I'm assuming this will take years to become effective, so it is not like you would have to get rid of your guns for 90 days. Most folks who own guns would have their license before it became necessary.

Also, I later proposed that if your guns are just at home you don't need a license. that would address this issue in part.

You don't need to provide a reason.

No problem.

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

I think shall issue would be required by recent SCOTUS cases, but I agree even if not strictly required.

Initial review can be so limited, but if a complaint is filed that raises serious questions about mental health or connections with terrorist groups, for example, I would not be willing to limit those investigations unduly.

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

What about lack of capacity?

A man I grew up hunting with suffered a decades ling decline into dementia and Alzheimer's. His family had to make a decision on when to take away his access to guns. They did a good job of it with the help of his doctors. I would like to think his license would have been revoked by his doctors, if this license scheme were in place.

Automatic weapons become eligible.

I'm not sure what you mean by eligible. If you mean anyone with a license could get a fly automatic weapon anywhere in the US without further restriction, then no. I'm not looking to change that aspect of the law with this. Maybe you can convince me that it is needed or related, though.

 

[Dr. Keith]

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

And I have amended my proposal so that one would not need a license to keep arms on private property.

Also, this law would not impact any other arms. Just guns.

 

[Dr. Keith]

All of that sounds like an infringement, right?

So does requiring a background check.

 

[Dr. Keith]

If a license is required to buy ammunition, that creates a control point for enforcement, which is something I think we need. Magazine capacity limits and aethetics-merit gun limitations do jack to prevent anything.

Agreed.

My amendment to this license suggestion: turn all administration of it over to the NRA. Also, separate license classes for separate firearm types.

And let the wise and honest NGO running the program figure out how to help poor people afford a basic license for home defense.

That is quite interesting. I'm not sure I would trust the NRA to run it, but having them involved would likely be important. What similar NGOs currently operate as the de facto regulator currently?

Also, the separate classes is interesting. I'm not sure what is currently required to own a fully automatic weapon in the US, so that would need to be considered if that is what you are talking about.

 

[Dr. Keith]

That tortured logic is a good example of why this would fail stunningly.

Which part?