Federal Gun Owner License

[Dr. Keith]

Sorry for the multiple posts all at once.

Not trying to overload the thread, but I thought there were a lot of good comments and I wanted to address them individually. I'm glad I did because I'm changing my view on this idea as I post. Like I said, it was a kernel of an idea to expand off the apparent success of the several concealed carry licenses in place.

Writing my OP was the most thought I had really put into it and the cracks in my initial thoughts are becoming quite clear. Thank you all for keeping this thread relatively on point and for being clear about your objections. I really appreciate the input.

 

[3point14]

All of that sounds like an infringement, right?

Denying firearms to the mentally ill would be an infringement. The amendment says 'the people', it makes no distinction.

As soon as one starts to try to restrict, in any way, access to firearms to the too young, the mad, the criminals and the criminally insane, the second amendment is breached.

This whole discussion is about how to restrict firearms to a given section of the population. Given that the wording of the amendment doesn't account for that, anything other than making firearms entirely unregulated, entirely available to absolutely anyone who wants one, regardless of mental state or criminal record, is an infringement of the second amendment.

 

[theprestige]

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.

That sounds reasonable. It would help if you could provide one or more real-world examples for us to examine.

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.

What abuse do you envision, exactly?

 

[theprestige]

Denying firearms to the mentally ill would be an infringement. The amendment says 'the people', it makes no distinction.

As soon as one starts to try to restrict, in any way, access to firearms to the too young, the mad, the criminals and the criminally insane, the second amendment is breached.

I think it's a well-established and entirely reasonable principle in constitutional law, that the government may infringe on a right, as long as it can show a compelling public interest in the infringement, and that the proposed infringement is the least-infringing practical method of serving that compelling interest.

I think there's probably a compelling public interest in infringing on the right of criminals, crazy people, and children to have guns. And we already recognize that children have less rights than adults anyway.

 

[Metullus]

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

I do not need a license to drive a vehicle. I only need a license if I want to drive that vehicle on a public road.

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

I do not need to pay the state for the privilege of buying a house.

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

Would you likewise argue in favor of paying a fee in order to vote?

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 point out where in this thread I have objected to the idea of a license? My objections have essentially been two: the requirement that applicants pay a fee and pay for mandatory training, which could prove a significant burden for some, and the fact that it is not a given that local authorities will willingly cooperate in the training and licensing process. I am also not terribly comfortable with my doctor reporting on his treatment of me to any government authority.

 

[3point14]

I think it's a well-established and entirely reasonable principle in constitutional law, that the government may infringe on a right, as long as it can show a compelling public interest in the infringement, and that the proposed infringement is the least-infringing practical method of serving that compelling interest.

I think there's probably a compelling public interest in infringing on the right of criminals, crazy people, and children to have guns. And we already recognize that children have less rights than adults anyway.

I appreciate that. The difficulty I have is with those who think that any infringement on the second amendment is an absolute stop sign to any attempts at gun control.

The question is not whether the second amendment should be infringed (it absolutely must, for the practical purposes you lay out above) but rather, how much, individually and collectively, you guys are willing to allow infringement upon it.

 

[Dr. Keith]

That sounds reasonable. It would help if you could provide one or more real-world examples for us to examine.

Here is the Texas photo ID law summary. It does not say the cost of the various accepted IDs, but the most common ones are not free or necessary to citizenship.

What abuse do you envision, exactly?

People submitting numerous applications to overload the system in an effort to either shut down the system and prevent if from taking effect or shut down the system and prevent others from getting a license.

Requiring some sort of pre-existing ID for online applications could be used to control for this. If the ID doesn't check out you don't even get to the application page. Only one application per ID. Something like that.

As I said, the fee was a crude first thought on how to control inputs, but other methods are not so hard to implement.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I think it's a well-established and entirely reasonable principle in constitutional law, that the government may infringe on a right, as long as it can show a compelling public interest in the infringement, and that the proposed infringement is the least-infringing practical method of serving that compelling interest.

I think there's probably a compelling public interest in infringing on the right of criminals, crazy people, and children to have guns. And we already recognize that children have less rights than adults anyway.

I appreciate that. The difficulty I have is with those who think that any infringement on the second amendment is an absolute stop sign to any attempts at gun control.

The question is not whether the second amendment should be infringed (it absolutely must, for the practical purposes you lay out above) but rather, how much, individually and collectively, you guys are willing to allow infringement upon it.

I agree with both of you. To insist no line can't be drawn is silly, but any line drawn must be only as burdensome as necessary.

My whole point with this thread is to find out where that line can be drawn.

 

[Dr. Keith]

My objections have essentially been two: the requirement that applicants pay a fee and pay for mandatory training, which could prove a significant burden for some, and the fact that it is not a given that local authorities will willingly cooperate in the training and licensing process. I am also not terribly comfortable with my doctor reporting on his treatment of me to any government authority.

I think those are fair objections and I've tried to address them above. Any comment?

 

[Nessie]

Since CCW permits are not an infringement, why is there an issue about this?

 

[bruto]

I'm not going to dive into the murky pool here detail by detail, but although I think the idea of federally licensing gun owners has some appeal, and in some ways more appeal than licensing guns, I think the initial proposal is too complicated and too invasive to have any traction. If the government is going to require some kind of training, it's necessary to specify what it is, and in the case of something as entrenched as the presumed right to bear arms, I think it might have to provide it rather than to send it to private entrepreneurs. I also don't think anyone will go for periodic relicensing, especially if it has a cost. Once you're vetted and catalogued, why should you have to re-qualify every two years?

I think I'm in a similar position here to Metullus.

 

[Ladewig]

Here is the Texas photo ID law summary. It does not say the cost of the various accepted IDs, but the most common ones are not free or necessary to citizenship.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense/electionID.htm

If you do not have any of the following acceptable forms of ID, beginning June 26, 2013, you may apply for an Election Identification Certificate (EIC) at no charge. However, if you already have any of the following forms of ID, you are not eligible for an EIC:​

I suspect all the other states have something similar, but I cannot find a source that lists every state's take on this issue.

 

[Metullus]

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.

Excellent! One hurdle past.

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.

In some locales I think that you are right, there will be low and no cost options available. Not so in many others. In other areas, Chicago and San Francisco come to mind, I suspect arranging sufficient training facilities will be problematic. In fact it would not surprises me if some places would put into place regulations specifically designed to discourage firearm safety classes.

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.

Never?

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.

I doubt that there are many municipalities in Texas that actively discourage vehicle inspections. I would bet that it is somewhat easier to get city approval to open a vehicle inspection shop in Kerrville than it is to open shooting range in Chicago.

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.

I doubt that there will be too few applicants to fill a class in very many locales for a good long time after putting such a law into place. I think that the problem will be just the opposite - there will be far too few classes available in those areas wherein the powers-that-be will see this as another way they can discourage gun ownership.

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.

I have no problem with a doctor reporting suspected child abuse. I have no problem with anyone reporting suspected child abuse (assuming that there is actual evidence of such). I am not so happy with a doctor deciding that I am not capable of driving. If the DMV questions my ability to drive I have no problem with them requesting that I get a doctor's note before renewing my license.

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?

Frankly I don't know. I have in the past been prescribed pain medication that interfered with my ability to drive and handle firearms. During the course of my treatment it was not necessary for my to surrender my drivers license or my car - I simply did not drive (to drive under the influence would be a crime). I did not surrender my guns - I simply did not handle them. I did not surrender my aircraft - I simply did not fly (to pilot an aircraft whilst under the influence would be a crime). Had I tried to drive my wife would have stopped me. Had I tried to fly my wife would have stopped me. I do not want to even think what she would have done if I had picked up a gun.

The thing is that my doctor does not know whether or not I have weapons - I have never considered it to be any of his business. He knows that I drive. He knows that I flew.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

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

Elaborate on this please.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I'm not going to dive into the murky pool here detail by detail, but although I think the idea of federally licensing gun owners has some appeal, and in some ways more appeal than licensing guns, I think the initial proposal is too complicated and too invasive to have any traction.

You are probably right. I was just hammering out what I would want to see, not what I thought would work.

If the government is going to require some kind of training, it's necessary to specify what it is, and in the case of something as entrenched as the presumed right to bear arms, I think it might have to provide it rather than to send it to private entrepreneurs.

I think I agree with this, too. Maybe it could even be an online course.

My problem is that gun ownership does not require any introduction to guns or gun safety. If we are going to trust someone to walk out of a walmart with a gun I want to make sure they at least know some basics.

Any idea how to achieve that without being too intrusive?

I also don't think anyone will go for periodic relicensing, especially if it has a cost. Once you're vetted and catalogued, why should you have to re-qualify every two years?

If the registry database is robust enough that any disqualifying event would be flagged to the appropriate license holder then I think I could get behind a much more streamlined approach to renewals.

 

[Dr. Keith]

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense/electionID.htm

If you do not have any of the following acceptable forms of ID, beginning June 26, 2013, you may apply for an Election Identification Certificate (EIC) at no charge. However, if you already have any of the following forms of ID, you are not eligible for an EIC:​

I suspect all the other states have something similar, but I cannot find a source that lists every state's take on this issue.

I remembered that there was some no-cost option, even if it was still a bit of a hassle.

At this point I've backed away from the fee entirely. It is too much of a lightning rod to be worth the small amount collected.

 

[MikeG]

......I am also not terribly comfortable with my doctor reporting on his treatment of me to any government authority.

Doesn't your doctor already do this, for instance in informing the relevant authorities when you are temporarily unfit to drive through illness, for instance, or permanently unfit through declining eyesight or lack of mental faculties? If this is so, would there be a fundamental difference between them doing that and reporting on any physical or mental reason why you shouldn't hold a gun licence?

 

[Metullus]

Doesn't your doctor already do this, for instance in informing the relevant authorities when you are temporarily unfit to drive through illness, for instance, or permanently unfit through declining eyesight or lack of mental faculties? If this is so, would there be a fundamental difference between them doing that and reporting on any physical or mental reason why you shouldn't hold a gun licence?

Nope. He does not.

 

[MikeG]

So who stops the unfit from driving? Say someone who has just had a stroke, or whose eyesite has declined to the point of blindness, for instance.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Since CCW permits are not an infringement, why is there an issue about this?

What our government says is irrelevant to the following question...

Do you think ccw permits are an infringement