A hypothetical gun control proposal

[Brian-M]

Given that gun control in the US is a hot topic at the moment, I thought I'd test the waters by presenting a hypothetical solution of my own. What would everyone's reaction be if the US government came up with the following proposal.... ?

1. Introduction of firearm licenses

Citizens would be able to apply for a license to own firearms starting from 2014. To be successful in their application, applicants would have to pass an accredited course in gun safety, use and maintenance.

The license would have to be renewed once every three years by attending a one-day refresher course, including a half-day of target practice. As of 2016 it would become a criminal offense (punishable by jail time) for persons to own or carry a firearm without a valid firearm license (with limited exemptions made for persons who have neglected to renew their expired license).

ETA: And as of 2016 it would be illegal to sell or supply firearms to persons without a valid firearm license.

2. Mandatory firearm registration

As of 2014 a national firearm registry would be formed, and firearm owners would be required to register any firearm in their possession by 2016.

As of 2016 it would be a criminal offense (punishable by jail time) to own or carry an unregistered firearm. All transfers of firearm ownership would require notification to the register within ten days by both parties. (Theft of firearms would also have to be reported.)

Citizens would be able to contact police to turn in unregistered weapons at any time without facing charges.
​

So, what does everyone think? Too harsh, too lax, or something else altogether?

If you've got an alternative proposal of your own to present, this is the thread to post it in.

 

[Dancing David]

Reasonable, basically all I want
-license
-registration
-tracking of sales

 

[triforcharity]

Given that gun control in the US is a hot topic at the moment, I thought I'd test the waters by presenting a hypothetical solution of my own. What would everyone's reaction be if the US government came up with the following proposal.... ?

1. Introduction of firearm licenses

Citizens would be able to apply for a license to own firearms starting from 2014. To be successful in their application, applicants would have to pass an accredited course in gun safety, use and maintenance.

The license would have to be renewed once every three years by attending a one-day refresher course, including a half-day of target practice. As of 2016 it would become a criminal offense (punishable by jail time) for persons to own or carry a firearm without a valid firearm license (with limited exemptions made for persons who have neglected to renew their expired license).

ETA: And as of 2016 it would be illegal to sell or supply firearms to persons without a valid firearm license.

2. Mandatory firearm registration

As of 2014 a national firearm registry would be formed, and firearm owners would be required to register any firearm in their possession by 2016.

As of 2016 it would be a criminal offense (punishable by jail time) to own or carry an unregistered firearm. All transfers of firearm ownership would require notification to the register within ten days by both parties. (Theft of firearms would also have to be reported.)

Citizens would be able to contact police to turn in unregistered weapons at any time without facing charges.
​

So, what does everyone think? Too harsh, too lax, or something else altogether?

If you've got an alternative proposal of your own to present, this is the thread to post it in.

I'm not opposed of any of that.

The only thing I would change, would be that all private sales would need to be done through an FFL dealer, to complete a background check.

But, otherwise, I'm ok with all of that. Reasonable, limited restrictions, and something that might actually work.

Now we just need to get our courts to start punishing the real hardened criminals who use guns. Bigger teeth for those laws.

 

[R.Mackey]

Of the measures you have listed above, the most useful from a public safety standpoint would be the "Education" component. We have something like that in California in the HSC, which is theoretically required to purchase a pistol, and must be renewed every five years (though obviously there is no confiscation of previously purchased firearms if you let it lapse).

The HSC is a joke. And even with such lax definitions, it has been used as a means to deny rights to law-abiding citizens -- if the State doesn't feel like printing more certificates, it won't, and this has happened before. Speaking as a credentialled instructor who regularly teaches a firearms safety and marksmanship course, if it were to disappear overnight, the effect on public safety would be nil. It does, however, make a few tens of millions of dollars a year to support its own bureaucracy.

I'm not entirely or even substantially against your proposal, but I shudder to think of how it would actually look in implementation. In order to avoid it becoming an "undue burden" and thus survive Constitutional challenge, safety education and verification would have to be either incredibly expensive at cost to the State, or it would be so dumbed down as to be worse than useless, as we have here.

 

[rwguinn]

Of the measures you have listed above, the most useful from a public safety standpoint would be the "Education" component. We have something like that in California in the HSC, which is theoretically required to purchase a pistol, and must be renewed every five years (though obviously there is no confiscation of previously purchased firearms if you let it lapse).

The HSC is a joke. And even with such lax definitions, it has been used as a means to deny rights to law-abiding citizens -- if the State doesn't feel like printing more certificates, it won't, and this has happened before. Speaking as a credentialled instructor who regularly teaches a firearms safety and marksmanship course, if it were to disappear overnight, the effect on public safety would be nil. It does, however, make a few tens of millions of dollars a year to support its own bureaucracy.

I'm not entirely or even substantially against your proposal, but I shudder to think of how it would actually look in implementation. In order to avoid it becoming an "undue burden" and thus survive Constitutional challenge, safety education and verification would have to be either incredibly expensive at cost to the State, or it would be so dumbed down as to be worse than useless, as we have here.

The worst part is that safety cannot be taught in a classroom--oh, sure the BASIC safety can--in about 10 minutes.
Real safety comes from practice. Lots of it. "Keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction" Where is that? up? down? left? right? It is situational, and you can't learn it from lectures. Muzzle control requires practice.
I suppose we could dictate "n' hours of practice every month, or week, or whatever, but that would place a pretty high burden on most people
"Keep the finger off the trigger" That requires a few rapped knuckles and lots of practice--the natural position is on the trigger.
All that, and a helluva lot more boils down to a lot of practical experience-expensive for somebody, and to maintain Constitutionality, it cannot be costly, or it will be ignored.

 

[R.Mackey]

Yup, hence the "incredibly expensive" part...

My class runs $80 a weekend, and it's a non-profit staffed exclusively by unpaid volunteers. (It is also one of the most effective in the industry.) To do so with salaried instructors and a State-approved curriculum, with Government overhead, would probably run north of $500 per student. Let's add a yearly refresher requirement, and you're headed for bankruptcy in short order.

Again, I'm not entirely opposed to the suggestion. I spend a whole lot of my personal time and money making this education available to as many people as possible. But instituting this as a requirement just doesn't feel scaleable. It certainly isn't easy, or the kind of thing one can just wish into existence with dewey-eyed legislation.

 

[Twiggett]

Given that gun control in the US is a hot topic at the moment, I thought I'd test the waters by presenting a hypothetical solution of my own. What would everyone's reaction be if the US government came up with the following proposal.... ?

1. Introduction of firearm licenses

Citizens would be able to apply for a license to own firearms starting from 2014. To be successful in their application, applicants would have to pass an accredited course in gun safety, use and maintenance.

The license would have to be renewed once every three years by attending a one-day refresher course, including a half-day of target practice. As of 2016 it would become a criminal offense (punishable by jail time) for persons to own or carry a firearm without a valid firearm license (with limited exemptions made for persons who have neglected to renew their expired license).

ETA: And as of 2016 it would be illegal to sell or supply firearms to persons without a valid firearm license.

2. Mandatory firearm registration

As of 2014 a national firearm registry would be formed, and firearm owners would be required to register any firearm in their possession by 2016.

As of 2016 it would be a criminal offense (punishable by jail time) to own or carry an unregistered firearm. All transfers of firearm ownership would require notification to the register within ten days by both parties. (Theft of firearms would also have to be reported.)

Citizens would be able to contact police to turn in unregistered weapons at any time without facing charges.
​

So, what does everyone think? Too harsh, too lax, or something else altogether?

If you've got an alternative proposal of your own to present, this is the thread to post it in.

Speaking as a gun owner myself, with two additions I would have very little argument with any of this outside of wondering how it all gets paid for without making firearms prohibitively expensive. Without them I would be totally against such measures.

First, licenses would be on a "shall issue" basis, meaning the state or fed must show a reason (criminal record, mental health issue, etc) why they would deny an individual's application, not the individual showing a valid reason for obtaining said license.

Second, licensing and registration information would only be accessible by law enforcement with a warrant/court order. Having any random individual or organization able to access such information to do with as they please is dangerous for everyone, in my opinion.

Also I would add that licenses would be much like we do with motor vehicles, issued by firearm type with appropriate training and qualification, not just a general license covering all firearms.

How effective any of it would be, I do not know but it seems to me we must find ways to reduce gun violence and accidents and I believe we can take measures without restricting the freedoms of law abiding citizens such as myself.

 

[DGM]

I don't really see any problems with this except, unless there is a way that the weapons remain in the possession of the responsible/licensed person all of this is for not. Provisions should be made to guarantee the safe storage so they remain in the hands of responsible people.

 

[Sabretooth]

Speaking as a gun owner myself, with two additions I would have very little argument with any of this outside of wondering how it all gets paid for without making firearms prohibitively expensive. Without them I would be totally against such measures.

First, licenses would be on a "shall issue" basis, meaning the state or fed must show a reason (criminal record, mental health issue, etc) why they would deny an individual's application, not the individual showing a valid reason for obtaining said license.

Second, licensing and registration information would only be accessible by law enforcement with a warrant/court order. Having any random individual or organization able to access such information to do with as they please is dangerous for everyone, in my opinion.

Also I would add that licenses would be much like we do with motor vehicles, issued by firearm type with appropriate training and qualification, not just a general license covering all firearms.

How effective any of it would be, I do not know but it seems to me we must find ways to reduce gun violence and accidents and I believe we can take measures without restricting the freedoms of law abiding citizens such as myself.

I completely agreed with the OP with the specifics above. Good idea if implemented correctly.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Reasonable, basically all I want
-license
-registration
-tracking of sales

Quit frothing at the mouth.

 

[AlBell]

I don't really see any problems with this except, unless there is a way that the weapons remain in the possession of the responsible/licensed person all of this is for not. Provisions should be made to guarantee the safe storage so they remain in the hands of responsible people.

And it ignores the problem that the criminal element will have no reason to register existing guns.

 

[DGM]

And it ignores the problem that the criminal element will have no reason to register existing guns.

But that's a moot point because if you have no regard for the law no law is going to help. Unless you're one that thinks bans make guns disappear (like the law makers hope you will) your point is...........well pointless.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Given that gun control in the US is a hot topic at the moment, I thought I'd test the waters by presenting a hypothetical solution of my own. What would everyone's reaction be if the US government came up with the following proposal.... ?

1. Introduction of firearm licenses

Citizens would be able to apply for a license to own firearms starting from 2014. To be successful in their application, applicants would have to pass an accredited course in gun safety, use and maintenance.

The license would have to be renewed once every three years by attending a one-day refresher course, including a half-day of target practice. As of 2016 it would become a criminal offense (punishable by jail time) for persons to own or carry a firearm without a valid firearm license (with limited exemptions made for persons who have neglected to renew their expired license).

ETA: And as of 2016 it would be illegal to sell or supply firearms to persons without a valid firearm license.

2. Mandatory firearm registration

As of 2014 a national firearm registry would be formed, and firearm owners would be required to register any firearm in their possession by 2016.

As of 2016 it would be a criminal offense (punishable by jail time) to own or carry an unregistered firearm. All transfers of firearm ownership would require notification to the register within ten days by both parties. (Theft of firearms would also have to be reported.)

Citizens would be able to contact police to turn in unregistered weapons at any time without facing charges.
​

So, what does everyone think? Too harsh, too lax, or something else altogether?

If you've got an alternative proposal of your own to present, this is the thread to post it in.

I think something like this would be a step in the right direction. The one thing it doesn't address is theft or unauthorized access, which is a huge problem.

 

[paiute]

Given that gun control in the US is a hot topic at the moment, I thought I'd test the waters by presenting a hypothetical solution of my own. What would everyone's reaction be if the US government came up with the following proposal.... ?

Which part of "...shall not be infringed." don't you get?

 

[Sabretooth]

Which part of "...shall not be infringed." don't you get?

How is the OP infringing? Requiring a safe handling class and licensing is no different that having a driver license...you don't hear many folks outside of FMOTL bitching about that.

Quite frankly, I would feel a whole lot better about people handling firearms if I knew they went through the same safe handling and storage course I did.

 

[paiute]

How is the OP infringing? Requiring a safe handling class and licensing is no different that having a driver license...you don't hear many folks outside of FMOTL bitching about that.

It certainly is different. Bearing of arms is explicitly protected without reserve in the Constitution. it was important enough to be made the second amendment. Driving on the public roads is not a constitutional right.

 

[Brian-M]

The only thing I would change, would be that all private sales would need to be done through an FFL dealer, to complete a background check.

I was thinking that the seller would have to take down the buyer's name and license number in order to report the transfer. Presumably they'd already have a background check done in order to get the license.

(But then the problem of fake licenses comes up.)

I'm not entirely or even substantially against your proposal, but I shudder to think of how it would actually look in implementation. In order to avoid it becoming an "undue burden" and thus survive Constitutional challenge, safety education and verification would have to be either incredibly expensive at cost to the State, or it would be so dumbed down as to be worse than useless, as we have here.

I suppose this is the part that makes my idea more hypothetical than practical. In a nation as large as the US (in both size and population) it'd take a lot of support and resources to get it done right, far more than what any gun control measure would ever be likely to get.

My class runs $80 a weekend, and it's a non-profit staffed exclusively by unpaid volunteers. (It is also one of the most effective in the industry.) To do so with salaried instructors and a State-approved curriculum, with Government overhead, would probably run north of $500 per student. Let's add a yearly refresher requirement, and you're headed for bankruptcy in short order.

I was thinking that local gun clubs would be able to get their instructors accredited to run the courses and issue certificates of completion that could then be turned in for a license once a background check is compete.

First, licenses would be on a "shall issue" basis, meaning the state or fed must show a reason (criminal record, mental health issue, etc) why they would deny an individual's application, not the individual showing a valid reason for obtaining said license.

Second, licensing and registration information would only be accessible by law enforcement with a warrant/court order. Having any random individual or organization able to access such information to do with as they please is dangerous for everyone, in my opinion.

Also I would add that licenses would be much like we do with motor vehicles, issued by firearm type with appropriate training and qualification, not just a general license covering all firearms.

As for the first, that's the only way it could work with the second amendment in place. The second is also reasonable, people should have a right to privacy.

The thought of having specific classes on the license (as well as a number of other details) did cross my mind, but I was trying to keep the OP brief enough that people wouldn't lose interest half-way through.

I don't really see any problems with this except, unless there is a way that the weapons remain in the possession of the responsible/licensed person all of this is for not. Provisions should be made to guarantee the safe storage so they remain in the hands of responsible people.

I agree completely. Having guns lying around where kids, thieves, ect can easily get hold of them is a very bad idea.

And it ignores the problem that the criminal element will have no reason to register existing guns.

That's why I stipulated punishable by jail time. It gives the criminal element a very strong disincentive against having unregistered firearms on their person or in their homes. It makes black-market trade in weapons much less appealing, since you can go to jail even if the guns aren't stolen.

 

[Brian-M]

It certainly is different. Bearing of arms is explicitly protected without reserve in the Constitution. it was important enough to be made the second amendment. Driving on the public roads is not a constitutional right.

By that logic, convicted felons also have the right to bear arms, and the laws preventing them from doing so are unconstitutional.

 

[paiute]

By that logic, convicted felons also have the right to bear arms, and the laws preventing them from doing so are unconstitutional.

Correct. There is no Constitutional support for denying felons their Second Amendment rights.

 

[AlBell]

But that's a moot point because if you have no regard for the law no law is going to help. Unless you're one that thinks bans make guns disappear (like the law makers hope you will) your point is...........well pointless.

What's pointless is lawmakers ignoring the problem and assuming no one will notice.