Federal Gun Owner License

[Fast Eddie B]

Obviously, but what is your opinion?

That Americans have the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms...

...with some reasonable restrictions allowed, subject to judicial review for their Constitutionality, and...

...the founders gave a clear and concise method for amending the Constitution. Unlike Australia, guns cannot be confiscated simply by edict. But if there's a sea change in public opinion, the right to keep and bear arms can be limited, or even repealed.

Here's the path:

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/amendments.htm

 

[Elind]

Mostly because I prefer to consider things one at a time. A bad argument is not a good one, and the fact that a fool has an opinion, while it does it no good, does it no harm either. I also, despite many liberal leanings, am not utterly against gun ownership, and while I do not have an answer to how it can be done, I think there should be some way to reconcile at least some vestige of the constitutional right with some vestige of public safety.

I have some guns too, but not ones designed for urban warfare, and I have no problem with registration and controls, which should work along the lines of getting a drivers license. I will however leave a public place if some jerk doing their open carry thing is there.

 

[WildCat]

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.

No, they can't. How many times on this forum does this lie get repeated?

Try it paul, just pop over your state border and try to buy a gun. Let us know how that works out for you!

 

[WildCat]

So much silliness here.

"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."

So, if anyone can prove they belong to a well regulated militia (or not well regulated like in most of the Middle East) they can have all the arms they want, even if they don't need them for personal defense.

Of course they could always join the National Guard if they want to be part of a militia and play with big guns designed to kill people only; assuming they are not afraid of their gummint.

That second part, you quoted it but then pretended you didn't see it.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

No, they can't. How many times on this forum does this lie get repeated?

Try it paul, just pop over your state border and try to buy a gun. Let us know how that works out for you!

To be fair, I can buy long guns in states adjacent to GA, and many others beside.

Just not handguns.

If I want one of those from out of state, I must go through an FFL. Conveniently, I have a friend who is one.

 

[WildCat]

Yes lawyers, and pretend ones like Scalia, are good at parsing words to meanings that they want,

You mean like defining "the people" as "troops under the command and control of the government"?

Because government have historically prevented their armies from being armed or something and so they decided it had to be included in the Bill of Rights?

Yeah, there's a lot of creative definitions in this debate, but Scalia wasn't the one doing it.

 

[WildCat]

Does anyone other than fanatical patriots think that our liberties these days rest on "well organized" militias?

It really doesn't matter, it's still the law. If you don't like it then repeal it.

 

[WildCat]

To be fair, I can buy long guns in states adjacent to GA, and many others beside.

Just not handguns.

If I want one of those from out of state, I must go through an FFL. Conveniently, I have a friend who is one.

Federal law allows that only if the states involved agree to it. And even then the purchase is subject to the laws of the state of residence.

For example, Illinois allows its residents to buy long guns in adjacent states. However, all of the Illinois laws apply - 24 hour waiting period and must have a FOID. For example I could buy a long gun at the Cabela's in Hammond Indiana, but I'd still have to wait 24 hours to take possession and present my FOID card.

But there is no way to do what paul was saying you could do, pop over to another state and make a purchase that would be illegal in your own state. That's a federal violation that carries a 10 year prison sentence.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Got it.

 

[paulhutch]

Federal law allows that only if the states involved agree to it. And even then the purchase is subject to the laws of the state of residence.

For example, Illinois allows its residents to buy long guns in adjacent states. However, all of the Illinois laws apply - 24 hour waiting period and must have a FOID. For example I could buy a long gun at the Cabela's in Hammond Indiana, but I'd still have to wait 24 hours to take possession and present my FOID card.

But there is no way to do what paul was saying you could do, pop over to another state and make a purchase that would be illegal in your own state. That's a federal violation that carries a 10 year prison sentence.

Thanks for the information. I'd heard it was possible many times over the decades and then heard it re-iterated by the Boston Police Commissioner just last week on a radio interview so I assumed it was true. I wonder if he's ignorant of the law or was just lying, neither is a good thing for a Police Commissioner.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The problem with the too easily to get guns from a neighboring area into an area with gun laws is it has no inherit restrictions. It can always be an excuse as gun control proponents can likely always find a loophole. The hypothesis needs to be defined before we look at a situation like Chicago.

 

[arthwollipot]

Unlike Australia, guns cannot be confiscated simply by edict.

It's almost like people are motivated to deliberately misrepresent Australian gun laws in order to make them sound as bad as possible.

 

[Ranb]

How was the ban on the importation of the Adler lever action shotgun accomplished? Was a new law passed or did a government official issue an order (edict?) to stop the importation of those rifles that had already been paid for by Australian residents?

Ranb

 

[Fast Eddie B]

[qimg]http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/bFFJysJ.gif[/qimg]

It's almost like people are motivated to deliberately misrepresent Australian gun laws in order to make them sound as bad as possible.

Fair cop.

I will restate...

"Unlike Australia, certain broad classes of firearms cannot be be rendered illegal to possess, nor subject to mandatory buyback and destruction, by edict."

 

[WildCat]

I wonder if he's ignorant of the law or was just lying, neither is a good thing for a Police Commissioner.

He's lying if he said Massachusetts residents could just pop over to a gun shop in Vermont and buy whatever they want.

 

[WildCat]

It's almost like people are motivated to deliberately misrepresent Australian gun laws in order to make them sound as bad as possible.

This looks "as bad as possible" to me:

"Mick Roelandts, firearms reform project manager for the New South Wales Police, in July 1997, examining thousands of weapons in Sydney, Australia, that were handed over under the government’s buyback program."

 

[Dr. Keith]

QFT.

I guess this needs addressing. But I have to wait for a background check before my ISP will hook me to the internet.

Unless someone is suggesting something that would be constitutional,

I haven no doubt that what I have proposed (as amended slightly during the thread) would be constitutional. If you have some case law that says otherwise I would be happy to see it.

Any other discussion of the second amendment would be welcome in one of the hundreds of threads already talking about it.

I don't really see the point in arguing about how good or bad a particular scheme would be.

Because bad schemes are proposed almost every day that have a small chance of passing. That they could pass is frightening to someone who enjoys owning guns. I'd rather see a sensible gun control law that actually gets to the issue of who can own guns rather than some silly discussion of what shape or color of gun is most dangerous.

That said, in terms of some restrictions e.g. fully automatic weapons (machine guns) there is essentially federal licensing since 1934.

Exactly, although I understand it is a bit more cumbersome than what I am discussing.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Actually, I am going to back off my assertion a bit. If you are not going to go onto private property to arrest people with guns, then there will be considerably less violence.

That was one of the reasons for making the change.

If we have a federal license it should be recognized by all jurisdictions. Otherwise why have one?

Agreed.

I was conceding that a state license, governed by federal standards and using federal databases, may be more palatable to certain people.

Obviously, a federal license would be easier to implement from a systems point of view, but if a generally recognized state license could be developed that may be easier to implement from a political point of view.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Fair cop.

I will restate...

"Unlike Australia, certain broad classes of firearms cannot be be rendered illegal to possess, nor subject to mandatory buyback and destruction, by edict."

That sounds like a confiscation scheme. Isn't that a " taking" in US law?

 

[Dr. Keith]

That sounds like a confiscation scheme. Isn't that a " taking" in US law?

US law is generally inapplicable in Australia.