Federal Gun Owner License

[Beady]

You are referring to the Constitution. Smartcooky was very clear in the post that he or she was still referencing the essential nature of the declaration of Independence for interpreting the Constitution.

The Declaration is the rationale for the Constitution.

Oh crap!

 

[theprestige]

The Declaration is the rationale for the Constitution.

This is incorrect. The Constitution has its own rationale, that was comprehensively debated and extensively documented by the signatories.

And it makes sense that the two would have independent rationales. The Declaration laid out the reasons for the Colonies to secede from the Empire. The Constitution laid out the basis of the government for a new nation then being formed. They may both spring in part from the same values and principles, but they have different purposes and separate rationales.

 

[smartcooky]

You want to prevent people on the No Fly/Terrorist Watchlist from purchasing firearms? Indict them. Can't indict them because they've committed no crime? Rats. Stupid due process. Stupid free country.


ETA...y'know who's also not a big fan of the No Fly list? Them commies at the ACLU. They're also the ones(with the AMA) opposed to mental health reporting requirements in the NICS background check system, a law that passed with NRA support. Gah. Why can't life be more black and white?

OFF TOPIC ASIDE

Let me tell you one way you can get on the no fly list.

A work colleague (Tim) was travelling to Ireland to work. It was on short notice and he only had five months left to run on his NZ passport before it expired, so he checked with the Irish Consular Office in Auckland and they said thats OK as three months was the minimum. He didn't have time to apply for and wait for a renewal, so he decided he would take care of that when he got to Dublin. He booked his flight and headed off a week later to Ireland via LAX.

The stop in LAX was to be transit only (refuel and restock, dropping off passengers going to USA and picking up new ones for the remainder of the journey. However when US authorities saw that Tim's passport only had four months left, they took him away and interrogated him. Why was he trying to enter the USA with a passport that had less than their mandatory six weeks minimum required by USDOS? No amount of explaining that he was not trying to enter the USA, and that he was only transiting would convince them. He told them Ireland only required three weeks and that he would only ever be in the transit lounge, but they would not listen, He even pointed out to them that he had a USDOS issued Transit Visa which showed he was only transiting as per the USDOS rules. They apparently didn't like him telling them their own Laws and they continued to interrogate him for a few more hours, so long that he missed his flight. They then said that since he missed his flight, he was now in the USA illegally (without a Visitor Visa) and they were going to deport him. He was held in a holding cell overnight, and deported back to NZ on the next available flight. Because he was deported, he is now in the US no-fly list.

He now has to travel to Europe west-about through Asia. He has vowed never to have anything to with "those *********** yanks" again!

[off topic aside]

And that folks, is one way to get yourself on the no-fly list by doing nothing illegal.

 

[Ladewig]

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?

my point was not that we should not go forward with your idea. My point was that before launching a new program, it is important to count all the costs. Including the lives of LEOs.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

That is one of the parts of the constitution that got snuck in their when no one was looking, like protections for non christian religions. As such it doesn't count.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, you don't.


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.

Exactly like the first amendment in no way prevents states from banning a religion, as Massachusetts proved by keeping Catholics illegal until 1820.

 

[Dr. Keith]

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

I tried to start near the middle in a cunning ruse to draw people in from both sides. Evil, no?

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.

It is simply a form of grandfathering in some pretty common uses.

Fro example: A family that lives in a rural area may have a .410 by the door to deal with raccoons. Not everyone in the house may have a license and there is a chance an unlicensed member of the household may need to shoot a raccoon while home alone. If the police show up should they arrest that person?

I don't think so. I think that use on private property should not be actionable. Now, to buy the gun or ammo someone would have to be licensed. And the gun and ammo could only be transported by someone who is licensed. But that doesn't mean grandma has to have a license if she is only going to be popping varmints out by the hen house.

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.

I think that is a reason to try different things, not a reason to give up.

 

[Dr. Keith]

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.

I had no idea. Thanks for adding that as a point of reference.

Has there been much resistance to this law besides the legal challenges? Is it generally popular with gun owners or deemed a huge pain?

 

[Dr. Keith]

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 think any proposal at this point is a first step. The problem is trying to make sure it is a first step in the right direction. I don't think "do nothing" will win the day for much longer.

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.

I think attacking the guns themselves will always create strange distortions in the market. That is why I'd rather focus on licensing uses.

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.

Quite possibly. Of course, electing a black man was just asking for an assassination and yet we have almost made it 8 years.

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

I am sorry for the loss of your friends. I wish there was something I could write here that could convey that thought more sincerely, but I hope you will take it as a sincere expression.

I also agree that those laws have not been successful. And, yet I think we need to try to find some sort of common ground where we can maintain general access to guns while having some hope of making sure that access is not willy nilly.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Ten years ago, liberals were decrying (correctly) the no-fly list as secretive and devoid of due process, and suddenly it's a great way to keep people from buying guns.

And on the flip side, conservatives were calling liberals paranoid and soft on terrorism (or worse), and suddenly they're all concerned about due process and civil liberties.

Gawd bless America.

Exactly. The no-fly list could be used as a probationary list to restrict the rights of citizens and visitors but only if it were actually well run within the limits of due process.

This just brings the shortcomings of the no-fly list sharply into focus.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I posted this on another thread, but it appears that this one would be more appropriate.

Thanks for posting it here, too.

Here's a thought: Let's direct our efforts toward the people who commit most of those violent crimes. To use the OP's analogy, let's stop coming up with new methods of lancing the buboes and start working on a cure for the plague.
I know this goes against the grain for the committed leftists here, but think about it for a moment.

A very small percentage of our society is responsible for a large percentage of the violence. It may not be PC, but it makes sense to direct our efforts here, and not against the public at large.
Dr. Keith, in another thread, mentioned that he wanted to hear more about my ideas on licensing so here it goes:
A national carry permit, issued by the State, but administered and coordinated through NCIC. Anyone who wants to purchase or carry a firearm has only to apply for it as a shall issue permit.

When purchasing a firearm, it must be presented (a "swipe", just like a credit card)by both seller and purchaser. The only thing the card would do is approve or deny. This could be accomplished in real time, just like a credit card. If you are legally entitled, and you get arrested(or whatever) for a crime which would otherwise prohibit you from the purchase/transfer, then your permission is denied until an adjudication is rendered. After that it, is re-instated or permanently denied pending the results.

This attacks the people who are illegally carrying/possessing/transferring firearms, but has no net effect on law abiding citizens.

You wouldn't even need to have a desire to own a firearm, the permit itself could serve as an excellent identity document (much as a drivers license).
Card readers could easily be installed at police stations, court houses and other government buildings, gun stores, sporting goods stores or even at those dastardly guns shows.
The police could easily equip their cars with readers, possibly using the same technology they use today for DL checks, wants & warrants, and insurance verification. This gives them a real tool to weed out the bad guys. If they pull over a valid permit holder, he's soon sent on his way. If they pull over an unlawful possession, he gets taken off the street on the spot.

I don't think we are far off here.

I would differentiate "carry" from "ownership", thus having two separate licenses or two classes of license. I have no interest in concealed carry, so I would prefer to skip that training.

I can see the appeal in a state issue rather than federal. There could be a federal uniform process such that all states who follow the process would be recognized by other states automatically. I predict that Texas would opt out, but it is still a good idea.

I would want some training, even if it is just an online course, to make sure the licensee has some basic firearms safety knowledge.

The rest sounds fairly similar.

Next, we could start enforcing the laws we already have. The Brady Act comes to mind. Every felon who has attempted to buy a firearm has violated a Federal law that carries a prison sentence with it, but the BATF and the AG spend more time coming up with excuses for their failure to enforce the law than they do in actually attempting to prosecute these offenders.

Agree completely. This baffles me.

There are other things we could do to address the problem at its roots, such as re-assessing our views toward drug possession (which seems to be working quite well in many of those European countries).

Also agree. We are running local experiments in Colorado and other states. I think we will learn a lot from these over the next few years.

Note that this license has nothing to do with registration of firearms themselves, it is a verification of the individuals right to carry/possess.

Very important point.

Also note that it would operate in real time. If the bank can do this with my credit card, I can think of no reason the government can't do it with my CCP.

Also agree. As a seller I should be able to check your license from my phone or smartphone as I am selling a gun to you, whether it be at Cabella's, a gun show, or in the parking lot of Denny's.

 

[Dr. Keith]

my point was not that we should not go forward with your idea. My point was that before launching a new program, it is important to count all the costs. Including the lives of LEOs.

And that is a point that dies bear some consideration. I'm not sure the best way to reduce resistance.

Maybe Chuck is onto something with it being a state issued permit instead of federal, but with federal backend to comply with current background check laws.

Maybe make it easier for gun buyers and sellers if they have the permit, instant purchase rather than waiting periods for background checks.

I think it has to be more carrot than stick, that is for sure.

 

[bruto]

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.

Thread drift:

Back in the 1970's I had some land in Massachusetts, so I went to the local cop to get a gun permit, just because I could, though in fact I never took a gun there. I got one, and still have it, signed by none other than the famous Officer Obie!

 

[smartcooky]

Thread drift:

Back in the 1970's I had some land in Massachusetts, so I went to the local cop to get a gun permit, just because I could, though in fact I never took a gun there. I got one, and still have it, signed by none other than the famous Officer Obie!

Obie Gun Wannabe.

Massachusetts... you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. You must to be cautious!

 

[theprestige]

OFF TOPIC ASIDE

Let me tell you one way you can get on the no fly list.

[...]

And that folks, is one way to get yourself on the no-fly list by doing nothing illegal.

... Nothing illegal except entering the US with a passport that's closer than the legally-permitted time to its expiration date, that is.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

What similar NGOs currently operate as the de facto regulator currently?

Every state bar association? Many (most?) occupations that require licensing are regulated by a licensing board that is not operated by the government and is comprised of others in the field.

 

[paulhutch]

I had no idea. Thanks for adding that as a point of reference.

Has there been much resistance to this law besides the legal challenges?

I think there was some in the early years but I'm not sure as I lived in RI back in the early 70s when it started.

Is it generally popular with gun owners or deemed a huge pain?

The few people I know who own guns don't seem to be bothered much. Seems to be thought of like a drivers license, hunting/fishing license or alcohol ID, just something you have to possess if you want to do certain things. The intent of keeping convicted felons and mentally unstable people from buying firearms/ammunition seems to be popular with everyone. However it doesn't work too well because the surrounding states don't have limitations so people without FID cards can just pop across one of the nearby borders to buy.

 

[paulhutch]

Thread drift:

Back in the 1970's I had some land in Massachusetts, so I went to the local cop to get a gun permit, just because I could, though in fact I never took a gun there. I got one, and still have it, signed by none other than the famous Officer Obie!

That reminds me, you apply for an FID card with your local police department so it's pretty easy compared to getting a drivers license where you have to travel to the DMV and wait forever.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Every state bar association? Many (most?) occupations that require licensing are regulated by a licensing board that is not operated by the government and is comprised of others in the field.

Good point. So, treat gun ownership a bit like a professional license? Does anyone really think the NRA is up to the task?

 

[Dr. Keith]

The few people I know who own guns don't seem to be bothered much. Seems to be thought of like a drivers license, hunting/fishing license or alcohol ID, just something you have to possess if you want to do certain things. The intent of keeping convicted felons and mentally unstable people from buying firearms/ammunition seems to be popular with everyone. However it doesn't work too well because the surrounding states don't have limitations so people without FID cards can just pop across one of the nearby borders to buy.

That is why I would prefer a federal system, or at least a federal requirement that every state have a system that meats minimum requirements.

Maybe the feds could set out the requirements and the states could either develop their own systems or contract with the NRA to run their systems.