• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Firearm ID cards for Americans

Zep said:
So you are going to buy a gun just to lock it in a strongbox somewhere?
Click to expand...
Exactly. If you are out in the world with a fully functional gun in your possession, it and you should be lincensed.

and the criminal thing is a non-argument. We don't license cars and drivers because it will stop criminals from driving. We license drivers to indicate that they have been certified as sufficiently trained in safe operation of a car. We license cars to verify that they are in good and safe working order and to identify them if they are lost and stolen.
 
Last edited:
It seems like another flawed attempt to limit the use of guns to people who use guns in a legal nature. Do any of you think this will stop criminals from obtaining weapons? I think not. If this was something that could be issued for free or at cost I see no problem with it; but we all know that when the government starts charging for services it really is just another tax on us.... And it would only be a matter of time before that tax would start to increase.

Stopping gun violence must be done through reduction of crime causing environments; such as lack of housing, jobs, education. How many drive-bys have you read about in Beverly Hills?
 
I like the idea.

It's been around for awhile and has never gone anyplace so I don't suppose it will this time either.

Requiring a license to buy ammunition seems like a good idea also.

The only thing I don't like about it is that it gives the government the ability to know who the probable gun owners are and to potentially use that ability for illegal purposes.
 
Zep said:
So you are going to buy a car just to park it in the garage and never drive it? So you are going to buy a gun just to lock it in a strongbox somewhere?
Click to expand...
Not me personally. But there are certainly people such as Jay Leno who buys cars simply to have them, not to drive them. And people buy guns as collector's items even more. There are also people such as subgenius who have guns as heirlooms/keepsakes/souveneirs, etc. who have no intention of using them.

Did he commit a crime with a gun?
Click to expand...
You said "Commit a crime while in possession of an unlicensed weapon, or register falsely = double your sentence." Nothing about using the gun in the crime.
 
Last edited:
This is exactly what we have in Canada, except that you can buy firearms from another private citizen as long as both parties have permits.
 
Art Vandelay said:
Not me personally. But there are certainly people such as Jay Leno who buys cars simply to have them, not to drive them. And people buy guns as collector's items even more. There are also people such as subgenius who have guns as heirlooms/keepsakes/souveneirs, etc. who have no intention of using them.
Click to expand...
AFAIK, Jay drives his cars. Not often or far, and he takes good care of them too. And locks them up when not in use. And also AFAIK, he didn't obtain any of them illegally. And finally, AFAIK, he has a license to drive.

Lots of people have souvenir and showcase weapons. My uncle kept the Lee Enfield .303 rifle he went to war with in WW2 (don't ask me how he kept it!). A workmate collects period black-powder pieces. Our Tim the combat wombat also has an interest in this field. The laws here are that such weapons should be rendered inoperative, and the guns registered, which is hardly a burden. So is that really so hard in the USA as well?

You obviously didn't read what I wrote before about Subby. Try again.

Art Vandelay said:
You said "Commit a crime while in possession of an unlicensed weapon, or register falsely = double your sentence." Nothing about using the gun in the crime.
Click to expand...
OK, so my wording didn't quite match my intended meaning... Or you choose to deliberately misinterpret. I'll be kind and go for the former.

I meant "in possession" as in "used it to commit the crime" or even "had it on your person when you committed the crime". That is, that it was a salient piece of equipment used to commit the crime.
 
A gun is simply an object. There are a million different items an individual could kill somebody with. Are we going to require people to register baseball bats... Back in my baseball days I could crank them out; easily put a swing into somebody’s head.

The problem will not be solved by enacting fees, registrations, so on.... Unless guns are actually banned in this country, criminals will always have easy sources/ways to get the guns they need. Even if guns were banned, I dare say criminals would find a way to get them.
 
Ranb said:
It will be unlawful for any person (except dealers etc) to own a pistol or semiautomatic firearm unless they obtain a license IAW with this act. There is a list of requirements to get the license including a certificate attesting to the completion of a written firearms examination which shall test the safe storage of firearms, the safe handling of firearms; the use of firearms in the home; the legal responsibilities of firearms owners; any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate.
Click to expand...


Does Congress even have the Constitutional authority to do this?

The Federal government can't regulate commerce that isn't interstate or international commerce. How are they going to claim that ownership of a firearm built and sold within your own home state is "Interstate" commerce?
 
Family Guy said it best.....


Stewie Griffin: Giving up breast milk is the hardest thing I've ever had to do. I'll bet the Founding Father's had an easier time writing the Bill of Rights.

[cut to the Founding Fathers writing of Rights]

Founding Father 1: All right, we're done.

Founding Father 2: You think the language in the Second Amendment is clear enough? You know, about the right to bear arms?

Founding Father 3: Of course it's clear. Every American has the right to hang a pair of bear arms on their wall. How could that possibly be misconstrued?

Founding Father 1: All right, fantastic, then. Wait, you know what? Before we send this to the printer, let's take that abortion thing out.



Classic moment!!!!
 
tracer said:
Does Congress even have the Constitutional authority to do this?

The Federal government can't regulate commerce that isn't interstate or international commerce. How are they going to claim that ownership of a firearm built and sold within your own home state is "Interstate" commerce?
Click to expand...

Congress has been doing this since 1934 for NFA (short barreled rifles/shotguns, machine guns, silencers) weapons. You can't get one unless you pay for a $200 tax stamp. No one has been able to stop them so far. The NRA has never tried to since it was passed.

Ranb
 
parky76 said:
I see nothing wrong with all Americans having to take a set of certification courses before they can own a gun. Too many Americans dont know how to safely handle, store, or use a fire arm and the more we know..the better.
Click to expand...

By what criteria do you judge this? Seriously, I'm not trying to be obtuse.

Let's presume 100% of the people who buy guns legally all go through courses, and all learn to store them properly. Furthermore, let's imagine the unlikely, and that they will only use them for self defense, properly, and only rarely at that, or hunting.

Would that make more than a 1% difference, if even that, in the overall "problem" rate of guns?

If not, why not? What's the problem with guns? Is it legal ownership, or illegal? How would this proposed law affect illegal ownership or activity?


You need a license to own and drive a car...but not to own a AR-15????
Click to expand...

Please compare accidental deaths and injuries caused by cars to deliberate deaths caused by illegal activities with cars (e.g. crime, or drunkenness). Is it similar to the proportions of accidental deaths and injuries with guns vs. deliberate deaths caused by illegal activities with guns?
 
This is pretty obviously a "Feel Good" bill sponsored by a small group of Democratic Congressman from safe,"Liberal" districts that has a much chance of passing 15 months before an national election as a snowball in hell. Watch all the "Blue Dog" Dems from swing districts fight each other to oppose this.
And I think the Bill's sponsers damn well know this. An exercise in futility.
 
I'm torn on this. I have a concealed carry license. I had to take a class to get this license in Tennessee. Tennessee has the most "portable" license there is (meaning other states recognize it and you can carry in those states").

Until I took the class, I didn't realize how _little_ I really knew about firearms and firearm safety. Mind you, I grew up in a family with rural roots who even made me take hunter eduction to get a hunting license.

After I got certified to carry a handgun, the thought crossed my mind that everyone who wished to own any sort of gun should have to take the class.

The problem is, I doubt any of the problems with interstate carry will be remedied by washington. They will want to license everyone but provide no protection for people who carry in Tennessee and drive a state with NJ type laws on the way somewhere else.
 
I have a Washington State CPL, and have no problem with adding a training requirement to it. And I would like to see a uniform national CCW law.

Perhaps an improvement would be to require that all firearms require a title similar to a motor vehicle, thus enabling private parties to register the transfer of weapons at the local county auditor's office as one would a vehicle sale.

Wonder how many criminals would be doing additional jail time for posession of stolen property just for having an illegally obtained weapon in their posession.

I do feel, however, that this would all make more sense if there were a regularized posse commitatus or militia. Require everyone to have some function in emergency situations, and that they be trained, and once registration started, the feds would be afraid to try confiscation.

One of the reasons we have rarely been invaded is the fear the invader would have of a guerilla movement better armed than the Iraqi resistance. But, given the lack of discipline of American gun owners these days, I wonder how well that works anymore.
 
The Painter said:
There are 25,000 gun laws. Do you really think 25,000 and 1 is going to make any difference? Crimes are already committed with illegal guns. How would this change that?
Click to expand...

You don't know how much it galls me to agree completely.
But I do.

Recent local political shenanigans have prompted a bunch of calls for 'ethics reform'. These particular hi-jinks were already illegal. Additional laws will be pointless.
 
Sounds like an unnecessary bill with no chance of going anywhere.
 
MilwaukeeMike said:
A gun is simply an object. There are a million different items an individual could kill somebody with. Are we going to require people to register baseball bats... Back in my baseball days I could crank them out; easily put a swing into somebody’s head.

The problem will not be solved by enacting fees, registrations, so on.... Unless guns are actually banned in this country, criminals will always have easy sources/ways to get the guns they need. Even if guns were banned, I dare say criminals would find a way to get them.
Click to expand...

Yup. We can't allow any karate experts onto planes anymore, since their very hands are deadly weapons. And yeah, banning guns doesn't work either. Actually, banning ANYTHING doesn't work. People still obtain the banned item. I suppose it keeps some things out of the hands of normal people who aren't interested enough to go hunting. But the people who really want the item will get it anyway. Plus the ban sets up a black market, which carries its own dangers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom