Federal Gun Owner License

[Dr. Keith]

Excellent! One hurdle past.

I know, right!

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.

As I read my OP over again in light of the responses here I think that some sort of online tutorial and testing would suffice. If you can't pass the testing then there would be additional resources and training, but I would assume that most would be able to handle it online. That should alleviate some of this concern.

Never?

Never without a federal license holder present.

The idea is to limit the impact of the law to the areas of public concern. The reach of the law need not extend onto private property.

To use the tired automobile analogy: you can't really get a car off your land without someone licensed to drive being involved.

I doubt that there are many municipalities in Texas that actively discourage vehicle inspections.

That may be the nicest thing anyone has ever said about our state.

Point taken, though. I live in a very pro-gun environment so it may be hard for me to imagine how this would work in other environments.

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.

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.

Your point is well taken. I wonder if having the training be online impacts your thinking.

I am not completely versed in online education and testing tools, but I imagine there must be a solution that could apply to something as simple as basic gun safety.

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.

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.

Now that you spell it out the temporary pharmaceutical aspect sounds a bit stupid. Just add some possession under the influence rules and that is largely covered.

I think there needs to be an method for keeping crazy people away from guns. I also agree that this may not be the best way to do it.

Maybe if the doctor thinks that you having access to guns would be a danger to yourself or others? An imminent danger?

There needs to be a connection, but not so direct as to impair self reporting and treatment, but not so removed that known psychotics are not flagged in the system. A compromise.

 

[Metullus]

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.

Family, I suppose. Police if they catch them driving. DMV at renewal time.

 

[Dr. Keith]

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.

Mostly family members.

I looked into this recently as my father has become a terrible driver. It is not routine, in my state at least, to revoke someones driving privileges. I'm sure it is done, but not out of hand and not often.

We don't even have to take an eye test at every renewal.

My blind uncle still has a driver's license. He doesn't drive, but his license is still valid.

ETA: Ninja'd by Metullus

 

[theprestige]

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.

In the first approximation, the unfit themselves. Do you not refrain from many activities you know yourself to be unfit to do, without needing any outside authority to intervene?

In the second approximation, fitness is tested at driver's license renewal time, which happens periodically throughout a person's life. The license is not renewed if fitness is not demonstrated at that time.

In the third approximation, the police will stop the unfit if they catch them in the act of driving unfitly.

In the fourth approximation, being stopped by the police may lead to judicial proceedings and a formal prohibition based on evidence of unfitness.

Why do you ask? Do the British authorities keep a record of doctor's reports, that are offered proactively by the doctors, and consulted by the authorities whenever someone applies for a driver's license?

That seems deeply intrusive and kafkaesque to this New World continental. Perhaps it's an insular thing?

 

[Metullus]

As I read my OP over again in light of the responses here I think that some sort of online tutorial and testing would suffice. If you can't pass the testing then there would be additional resources and training, but I would assume that most would be able to handle it online. That should alleviate some of this concern.

Online training is not a bad idea, and does address some of my concerns. I am not all that comfortable with a training requirement that does not include a hands-on component. I am a very big believer in hands-on training.

Never without a federal license holder present.

To be clear, even if the weapon is being taken shipped to or from a gunsmith or the manufacturer?

Your original idea included the purchase of ammunition. Does this still apply?

The idea is to limit the impact of the law to the areas of public concern. The reach of the law need not extend onto private property.

To use the tired automobile analogy: you can't really get a car off your land without someone licensed to drive being involved.

I get that, but I can buy gasoline....

That may be the nicest thing anyone has ever said about our state.

I like Texas. I like most states for that matter. Except New Jersey. And wherever Detroit is.

Point taken, though. I live in a very pro-gun environment so it may be hard for me to imagine how this would work in other environments.

The thing is that for me personally your proposal would work fine. It would not likely cause me any real difficulty and might, in fact, make my life easier. I can afford to pay fees and travel to wherever I might need to go to get the requisite training. I can find places to shoot even if there are no ranges anywhere near me. A federal license, that all state and local jurisdictions must respect, would be a godsend for me where I live. But it is not, as my father was wont to point out, all about me.

Your point is well taken. I wonder if having the training be online impacts your thinking.

It does. Except for the hands-on caveat I mentioned earlier.

Now that you spell it out the temporary pharmaceutical aspect sounds a bit stupid.

Not stupid. Just problematic.

Just add some possession under the influence rules and that is largely covered.

Not unreasonable and, I suspect, already in place in most jurisdictions.

I think there needs to be an method for keeping crazy people away from guns.

This I agree with. There might be some disagreement as to what constitutes "crazy".

Maybe if the doctor thinks that you having access to guns would be a danger to yourself or others? An imminent danger?

I would hope that a doctor thinks that a person is an imminent danger would take some action whether or not there are firearms available.

There needs to be a connection, but not so direct as to impair self reporting and treatment, but not so removed that known psychotics are not flagged in the system. A compromise.

Yup. There's the rub. I do not yet know the answer to that.

 

[MikeG]

Here, doctors routinely tell the DVLA that a patient of theirs is unfit to drive, be it permanently, or temporarily. My FIL, for instance, had a stroke about 15 or 18 months ago, and was barred from driving for 6 months, then after a medical assessment was allowed to start driving again. I can't see why anyone would think this unfair or intrusive. Relying on, say, an Alzheimer's patient to self-diagnose that they weren't fit to drive is patently ridiculous, as is having said patients at loose on the roads. An uncle of mine, for instance, had intermittent dementia in his last year or two, and in those episodes would forget that we wore glasses (and without which he could barely see to the front of the car), and would therefore endanger anyone in his vicinity on the road when driving. I reported this to his doctor, who had his licence revoked.

 

[BStrong]

Would a federalized firearms owner licensing system require uniform regulations that would require individual states to abandon their particular version of firearms regulation statutes?

30 some odd states are "shall-issue" for concealed carry, California and a few others are "may carry" (if you know the secret handshake) whose statutes take precedence?

 

[smartcooky]

All of that sounds like an infringement, right?

No, it doesn;t

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
verb: infringe; 3rd person present: infringes; past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed; gerund or present participle: infringing

actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
disobey, defy, flout, fly in the face of;
disregard, ignore, neglect;
go beyond, overstep, exceed;
infract
"the statute infringed constitutionally guaranteed rights"
antonyms: obey, comply with
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"
synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on; More

Requiring a person to have a licence (or to pay a fee for that licence) to own/use firearms does not limit or undermine anyone's right to bear arms. Anyone can get a licence so long as they are a fit and proper person to do so. I they have the money to buy a gun and ammunition, they have the money to pay a nominal fee

While New Zealanders don't have a specific constitutional right to own firearms under the The NZ Bill of Rights, they are nonetheless allowed to do so. All they need is one of these...

..and if they want to be allowed to sell ammunition and firearms, they need to have one of these...

...anyone can get one if they pass the exam and the background check.... we really do want to limit the chances of psychopaths, sociopaths and criminals getting hold of guns. In its entire history, NZ has had only two spree killings; Kokatahi in 1941 and Aramoana in 1990. The Firearms Licensing laws were significantly tightened in 1992 after the Aramoana incident, which probably would not have taken place had those 1992 Laws been in effect.

A Firearms License doesn't cost much ($126.50) and you only have to renew it every 10 years, so it costs you the princely sum of 3½c per day, hardly a bank breaker!!

You will go a long, long way to find any New Zealander who does not agree that shooters should be licensed or who thinks that gun ownership in New Zealand should be the near-unrestricted free-for-all that it is in the USA.

So long as you continue to not wake up to the fact that you need to have some kind of restriction on who can exercise those constitutional rights granted to you by the Second Amendment, that you hold so dear, then that lack of realisation is going to come at the expense of the constitutional rights of the victims, granted to them by the constitution itself...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ——

...you will continue to have spree killings like Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, the Beltway Sniper, Overland Park, Santa Monica, Grand Rapids, Appomattox, Chattanooga, Red Lake, Winnetka, Geneva County, Seattle Cafe, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Montgomery County and dozens more. The survivors, will continue to be traumatized for years to cone, the friends and relatives will continue to have to bury their dead, and all because a few hard-nosed gun enthusiasts want to exercise their rights to play with their toys!

 

[BStrong]

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?

Start here:

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi article=1438&context=faculty_scholarship

Imagining Gun Control in America: Understanding the Remainder Problem

" In recent years, several states and municipalities passed laws mandating the registration [and subsequent prohibition] of assault rifles. These laws failed miserably, primarily due to owner resistance. In Boston and Cleveland, the rate of compliance with the ban on assault rifles is estimated at 1%. In California, nearly 90% of the approximately 300,000 assault weapons owners did not register their weapons. Out of the 100,000-300,000 assault rifles estimated to be in private hands in New Jersey, 947 were registered, an additional 888 were rendered inoperable, and four were turned over to the authorities.74"

 

[Dr. Keith]

Online training is not a bad idea, and does address some of my concerns. I am not all that comfortable with a training requirement that does not include a hands-on component. I am a very big believer in hands-on training.

I have had more than one friend tell me how much they learned at the CHL class. Folks who already owned guns for some time. So, I too would prefer something hands-on, but this has to have a low barrier to entry and on-line seems to be easier for most people.

To be clear, even if the weapon is being taken shipped to or from a gunsmith or the manufacturer?

That would preclude Fedex unless there is a common carrier exception. So, there would need to be a common carrier exception. I don't know if that is what you meant, but good catch.

But, to purchase a gun one would need a license. Just like one now needs a background check.

Your original idea included the purchase of ammunition. Does this still apply?

Yeah. It would be akin to expanding the current background check to ammo. Something that is impossible now because the current system is a bit of a mess.

I get that, but I can buy gasoline....

Yeah. So molotov cocktails won't be precluded, but shooting stuff up will. Not perfect, but I don't think it is so wrong.

I like Texas. I like most states for that matter. Except New Jersey. And wherever Detroit is.

I didn't take offense.

The thing is that for me personally your proposal would work fine. It would not likely cause me any real difficulty and might, in fact, make my life easier. I can afford to pay fees and travel to wherever I might need to go to get the requisite training. I can find places to shoot even if there are no ranges anywhere near me. A federal license, that all state and local jurisdictions must respect, would be a godsend for me where I live. But it is not, as my father was wont to point out, all about me.

My goal was to propose something that would work for most people and then figure out who it wouldn't work for so that it could be adjusted as needed. But, to get it to work for most people I think you have to remove the fee and limit the reach to channels of commerce and public spaces. Next, the training was a bit much, so that needed to be pulled back and probably modernized. I'm sure there are other issues that need to be worked out, but at least now I think it actually would work for most people, maybe even make their lives easier, as you note.

This I agree with. There might be some disagreement as to what constitutes "crazy".

Exactly.

I would hope that a doctor thinks that a person is an imminent danger would take some action whether or not there are firearms available.

I think most would. But then as they are released from care (since insurance only covered 14 nights in metal facility for the code the doctor put down) and they swing by walmart to finally buy that shotgun that will solve all their problems, the news will report that nothing was done to limit their access to guns.

Yup. There's the rub. I do not yet know the answer to that.

Me neither. But I feel closer than when I started this thread.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Would a federalized firearms owner licensing system require uniform regulations that would require individual states to abandon their particular version of firearms regulation statutes?

30 some odd states are "shall-issue" for concealed carry, California and a few others are "may carry" (if you know the secret handshake) whose statutes take precedence?

This is a proposal for a federal firearms owners license, not a concealed carry license. In order to buy, sell, possess (off private property) or transport a person would have to have, or be under the supervision of someone with, a license. Nothing about concealed carry, pro or con.

For the reasons you state and for other reasons, I also think a federal concealed carry license would be a very good idea, but maybe even harder to pass.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Start here:

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi article=1438&context=faculty_scholarship

Imagining Gun Control in America: Understanding the Remainder Problem

" In recent years, several states and municipalities passed laws mandating the registration [and subsequent prohibition] of assault rifles. These laws failed miserably, primarily due to owner resistance. In Boston and Cleveland, the rate of compliance with the ban on assault rifles is estimated at 1%. In California, nearly 90% of the approximately 300,000 assault weapons owners did not register their weapons. Out of the 100,000-300,000 assault rifles estimated to be in private hands in New Jersey, 947 were registered, an additional 888 were rendered inoperable, and four were turned over to the authorities.74"

Do you think the same problem would apply to licensing owners as opposed to registering arms that there was a very strong push to ban?

 

[Loss Leader]

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

Not everyone gets in car accidents, either, but we require licenses and insurance from them.

 

[bruto]

I think even states such as Vermont in which there is essentially no gun control follow the basic Federal law. A basic Federal license for which any sane non-felonious citizen would qualify ought, I imagine, to be simple enough, and might even save some states the bother of duplication. If the Federal qualifications start becoming more selective and complex, a problem obviously could occur, but if the Federal license is basically a certificate that a person is not disqualified, then I don't see why a state's more stringent laws could not be applied on top of it, while a state without stringent laws could simply require that you show a permit when you buy a gun, as you might show ID when you buy liquor or a passport when you travel.

 

[mgidm86]

Three pages in and this gun thread is still civil - very nice.

How do we keep guns away from the gangs, and criminals in general. A huge amount of gun killings are by people who bought guns off the black market, or stole them.

Serial numbers can be removed, parts replaced. Unless a gun can be tracked back to its original, or most recent, legal owner, then gun controls will have no affect on these killings.

California has strict gun laws yet a huge problem with gang related shootings, as do many other high gun control states. What percentage of murders are committed by people who legally own the gun involved? It's hard to pinpoint any solid numbers, but my snooping around the web shows that number to be pretty low.

Gun violence has been on the decline for over 20 years:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...y-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/

The nation’s overall gun death rate has declined 30% since 1993. This total includes homicides and suicides, in addition to a smaller number of fatal police shootings, accidental shooting deaths and those of undetermined intent.

...

The rate of nonfatal gun victimizations declined in a similar way to the gun death rate, with a large drop in the 1990s – 63% between 1993 and 2000.

...

Despite these trends, most U.S. adults think gun crimes have increased. In our 2013 survey, more than half (56%) of Americans said the number of gun crimes had gone up compared with 20 years ago. Another 26% said the number of gun crimes had remained the same, and just 12% said gun crimes had declined.

As for me, I own one shotgun. I'm not an enthusiast and if all guns could magically disappear that would be fine with me. I am for sensible laws though, so I am always hesitant to - in fact rarely do I - jump on the latest gun crime solution.

I also question the usefulness of a law suggested here that people who keep their guns at home wouldn't need to be licensed. How can that be enforced, besides after the fact? If someone wants to kill someone or go on a rampage, that rule will not stop them.

Keeping guns away from the mentally ill, as has been heavily discussed in this thread, is only addressing a small part of the problem. How do we keep them out of the hands of criminals? Nothing we have tried seems to work.

 

[paulhutch]

Massachusetts has required a state issued firearms identification card (FID) to possess firearms and/or ammunition, even in your home, for many decades. So far all challenges based on the 2nd amendment have failed with the Federal courts always saying the 2nd does not prohibit the FID requirement.

There have been some 2nd amendment rulings against some refusals to issue an FID card to certain groups of people over the decades, but the basic requirement has not lost a challenge yet.

 

[BobTheCoward]

So long as you continue to not wake up to the fact that you need to have some kind of restriction on who can exercise those constitutional rights granted to you by the Second Amendment, that you hold so dear, then that lack of realisation is going to come at the expense of the constitutional rights of the victims, granted to them by the constitution itself...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ——

That isn't the Constitution.

 

[BStrong]

Do you think the same problem would apply to licensing owners as opposed to registering arms that there was a very strong push to ban?

It is my belief that because of the "this is a good first step" GI comment wrt proposed and/or enacted gun control laws there are a wide cross section of current gun owners that view any gun control proposal as just that - only a "first step."

I myself believed it in the wake of the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act that banned the manufacture of transferable machine guns as of 19 May, 1986 - my business partner and myself decided that the writing was on the wall and there was a good chance we'd be put out of business in any event, so we split up our in stock inventory, surrendered our SOT and state MG dealers license and called it a day. In retrospect not only were we wrong, we should have taken every dollar we could beg or borrow and turned out every RDIAS and other inexpensive registerable NFA devices or receivers we could afford to produce and sat on them until the market for a registered drop-in auto sear for an AR platform rifle went to over $10,000.00 in U.S. dollars - for something we built for under 20 bucks - which is something that actually happened, as opposed to our predictions.

A federal gun owner licensing proposal would probably face more refusal impulse than even state gun registration proposals, and could very well set the stage for more ugliness than what we've seen so far, depending on the nuttiness of the refuseniks and the nuttiness of local federal authorities.

California authorities are already throwing the gun control card in the media today, and If history is any guide California will have a third assault weapon law that won't prevent criminal incidents committed w/ "AW's" any better than the last two laws have, and the media has conveniently downplayed the fact that we have 26 years of assault weapon control laws to look at that have failed to stop any ******* from murdering someone with a semi-auto rifle, including some pretty good friends of mine.

Dave, 1998

http://www.odmp.org/officer/15077-patrolman-david-john-chetcuti

Erv, 2009

http://www.odmp.org/officer/19879-sergeant-ervin-julius-romans-ii

 

[smartcooky]

That isn't the Constitution.

No, you're right. Its an even more important declaration of your rights.

Without it, your founding fathers would never have had the chance to "form a more perfect Union". They would not have been able to "establish Justice" nor "ensure domestic Tranquility". There would have been no opportunity for them to "provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty"

In short, without the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America could never have been established.

 

[smartcooky]

How do we keep guns away from the gangs, and criminals in general. A huge amount of gun killings are by people who bought guns off the black market, or stole them.

Serial numbers can be removed, parts replaced. Unless a gun can be tracked back to its original, or most recent, legal owner, then gun controls will have no affect on these killings.

You have to start somewhere.

California has strict gun laws yet a huge problem with gang related shootings, as do many other high gun control states. What percentage of murders are committed by people who legally own the gun involved?

These killings in San Bernardino were done (AFAIK) with legally owned and registered firearms. Ditto for Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech and others.

Criminal gangs are rarely if ever involved in school yard spree killings... they're too busy robbing bodegas and running drugs. Their victims are not usually kids and teachers in schools; more often than not the victims other criminals (no loss to the gene pool there IMO).