In support of a National FOID (Firearms Owner Identification Card)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The other fundamental flaw in this idea follows the law of unintended consequences. Once there is a firearm ID card for people, how hard would it be to maintain a database of firearms purchased by that person? We're not talking the current "FFLs keep sales records for a certain period", but the development of a national database wherein said gunowners' behavior is monitored. The whole point here, Lost Sheep, is that the government is lobbying for more power. Power and liberty are mutually exclusive. The more power the government has, the less liberty the people have, and vice versa.

For a more extensive treatise on this subject, i invite you to read through my posting elsewhere on this site.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=696878
 
Why do i need a FOID card "to confirm my Second amendment rights"? FOID cards are gun registration schemes with another name.
 
I would prefer a notation on normal identification documents, such as a drivers license which identifies persons who may not purchas firearms
 
legaleagle_45, the problem with that idea is it does not by pass having to run it through NICS as one does not know if it is current or not outside of being able to check if it is expired or not.
 
Your proposal doesn't bother me from a rights standpoint; I just don't see how the added costs and layers of bureaucracy would provide much we don't already have in Texas. You start with a universal assumption of competence and liberty to exercise the rkba; that's good, but we already have that here (unless the Fed intrudes), and we don't need a card to assume it - we just assume it.

The only thing this really offers is a card one MUST have (trusting the Fed to do right and keep its word without attempting to regulate or restrict- yeah, I'd trust the Fed with an unconstitutional power like that). The card is presumably uncounterfeitable and uncircumventable (like green cards?) with the usual severe (and virtually unenforceable / unenforced) penalties for counterfeiting or circumventing the card system (like green cards). The fact that penalties for getting around the system are written into the system is as good as admiting the system is only as good as the will of its users.

Instead of all the bureaucratic complication, we just assume the right of the law-abiding to have guns and punish criminals caught with them. Oddly enough, it seems to be working for us at least as well as anything the blue states have going on.

No card required.
 
Last edited:
I wish I could thank each and every one of you who answered my post by name, but there are so many. I have learned much and do appreciate the thought put into those posts.

Twiki357 did point out that this is a lot like a national ID card. Yes. And if you don't think restricting use and access (similar to the current laws firewall around IRS data) are enough, you have a valid objection. Likewise the difficulties of error correcting and the potential to expand governmental control into unconstitutional infringements. I see these as the greatest flaws pointed out so far.

The other highlights:

USSR said:
Oh, great idea, a government database of firearms owners!
Click to expand...
No, this is a government database of everyone, whether they own firearms or not. The only data in it is a everyone's identity and if that person has a disqualification. No information about whether or not they have ever stepped into a gun shop in their life or if they own 50 guns. That is less than what your Social Security record holds.

Art Eatman said:
Allegedly, the reason for any controls on firearms is to reduce or prevent violent crimes where firearms are used.

So what violent crimes would be prevented by an FOID? What crime rate would actually be reduced by an FOID, other than paperwork crimes?
Click to expand...
Violent crimes? None. The prevented crime(s) would be those attempting to infringe the 2nd Amendment. At least, that was my idea.

Alaska444, thanks for your kind words in post 29 and for taking the OP for what it was intended to be. Your post 38 missed the point that the national FOID would have absolutely no firearms information in it. Not even if a purchase took place nor a count of number of inquiries. (Thanks OpelBlitz, post 39/41 for noting that for me.)

Evergreen (post 30). I love it. It goes one better than "Minority Report". You have a great premise for a Science Fiction novel/movie.

daggertt said:
The other fundamental flaw in this idea follows the law of unintended consequences. Once there is a firearm ID card for people, how hard would it be to maintain a database of firearms purchased by that person? We're not talking the current "FFLs keep sales records for a certain period", but the development of a national database wherein said gunowners' behavior is monitored.
Click to expand...
You are right about unintended consequences.

Recording any kind of activity would be prohibited by the law establishing the database. I did anticipate that someone would want to monitor inquiry activity in the database, so thought to specify that not even a count of inquiries would be kept (certainly not attached to individuals or locales).

I DID NOT anticipate the unintended consequences of making the post. The firestorm of misunderstanding has been astounding.

To all who read the post as me supporting restrictions (and seeing that as illogical for someone living in one of the few states where owning a firearm is still relatively free of infringement) you did not understand the O.P.

To all who saw this as anything like the Illinois FOID in more than name, you did not understand the O.P.

To anyone who saw this as registering firearms, counting them or even knowing about them, you did not understand the O.P.

To all who say this should be unnecessary, you are right. But so should be the 2nd Amendment, and the other 9, too. The Framers of the Constitution at first thought the Bill of Rights were unnecessary. But they thought better of it and that is why they are AMENDMENTS to the Constitution and not written right in. They strengthen the Constitution.

To those who don't want to be in a national database. I've got some bad news for you.

sonick808 and alsaqr said:
no need for a card to confirm a god-given right

Why do i need a FOID card "to confirm my Second amendment rights"? FOID cards are gun registration schemes with another name.
Click to expand...
No need for the Second Amendment, either. God-given means God-GIVEN. In fact, I don't even need God to give it to me. But that is another thread.

legaleagle_45 said:
I would prefer a notation on normal identification documents, such as a drivers license which identifies persons who may not purchase firearms
Click to expand...
We have something like that in Alaska for people prohibited from buying alcohol after multiple DUIs

VVelox said:
legaleagle_45, the problem with that idea is it does not by pass having to run it through NICS as one does not know if it is current or not outside of being able to check if it is expired or not.
Click to expand...
My idea is that it never expires. Checking would be immediate with a phone call or computer connection to get current status.

Texan Scott said:
Your proposal doesn't bother me from a rights standpoint; I just don't see how the added costs and layers of bureaucracy would provide much we don't already have in Texas. You start with a universal assumption of competence and liberty to exercise the rkba; that's good, but we already have that here (unless the Fed intrudes), and we don't need a card to assume it - we just assume it.
Click to expand...
I was hoping the costs would be salable with the argument that this bureaucracy would be cheaper than the patchwork we have now and the lives saved by a better-armed society and the savings gained by the absence of all the needless deaths and injuries prevented by 1) prohibited persons not having arms and 2) all other persons being ABLE to protect themselves.

The only thing this really offers is a card one MUST have (trusting the Fed to do right and keep its word without attempting to regulate or restrict- yeah, I'd trust the Fed with an unconstitutional power like that)...(edited for brevity)[/QUOTE]Yep. The unintended consequences thing and the eternal vigilance thing.

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787 a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got?” With no hesitation, Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

The quip that "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.", I think, does not apply to the O.P. The liberty and safety have already been partially lost. This is the vigilance required to secure freedom, liberty AND safety.

Again, thanks to all who responded to my O.P. I have read and will consider further the issues you brought up. The implications of a National ID and the ability to extend big government's power foremost among those concerns, as the registration and rights/privilege questions have already been covered.

Please consider me schooled (at least lesson 1). In the future I will try to do better at expressing myself and more perceptive in the unintended consequences department.

Lost Sheep

p.s. Is this a coincidence?
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=697024
 
Last edited:
let,s see here. you want me to trot down to the local leo and tell him how many guns i own and what type? name address and probably finger prints. maybe while we,re at it we can give our ipo address and cellphone id codes. then maybe sign an agreement for visits to our homes by the police for a quick look around anytime they want. might want to give them a list of any prescibed drugs we,re taking and have a nice little chat about how we feel about whats going on in the country.
i don,t think so
 
Lost Sheep, I see what you intend to accomplish,but I just don't see how it could work. I believe as shown here public support will probably be negative.
But at the real issue on this, any sort of regulation is like a seed. It only grows from where it's planted. It may start as you stated, but would eventually have additions as to what constitutes revoking the rights of a citizen. At some point encroachment would continue and it would be very easy to track gun owners based on the number of times there status is checked. This also, arguably no different from what we have now, makes the law abiding citizen in burden of proving they are a law abiding citizen rather the Government proving they are not.
This could not offer any protection of the 2nd amendment giving that it is a law and subject to each new house of congress. No law passed can constrain future members of congress,leaving the door wide open for change at the whim of a new session. The only way to solidly protect our freedoms are by constitutional amendments, and we already see how they walk all over those.
Further more, this falls under the misconception that the regulation of law abiding people is the answer to our problem with law breakers. I don't believe that was your intent but more a method of getting support of the anti gun crowd and at the same time protecting supporters of the 2nd amendment.
It would be a novel concept, but I just don't see that it would work and in the end leave us worse off. Your intent is a good one, keep thinking.
 
Last edited:
The one thing that the govenment is not going to give up is the ability to track down the legal owner of a weapon that they obtain as the result of being used in a crime. Now, if the police have a gun it is possible to obtain the first dealer from the manufacture and then trace the trail of 4473 and private transfer records(?) to the actual owner. I can see where this may be helpful, however, the current scheme prevents the government from having a database that has person X as owning a sepecific list of guns.
Maybe we should just add a field to our driver license that indicates the legal restriction of gun rights. That way as far as the federal governement would know all drivers without the restriction is a gun owner. Harder to go and inspect/take any guns owned by the person. Also, this would give a person that is restricted a up front warning and a method of due process to get the restriction removed. For non-drivers, most states issue a state ID card.
We could continue the requirement that sellers keep records of the disposal of firearms, either sold, destroyed or lost.
I oppose the use of medical records or presctiption records by ANY government agency.
 
Any proposal to "regulate" either the weapon or the individual needs to address the following questions;

Does it keep guns out of the hands of criminals ?

Does it make criminals out of current legal owners ?

A "No" on the first and/or a "Yes" on the second should disqualify the proposal from any further consideration.

Every 2A discussion I have starts with those two questions. It's interesting to listen to the deflection tactics.

So, does a national "FOID' do either of the above ? "No" and "Yes", further discussion is not productive.
 
winterhorse290 said:
let,s see here. you want me to trot down to the local leo and tell him how many guns i own and what type? name address and probably finger prints. maybe while we,re at it we can give our ipo address and cellphone id codes. then maybe sign an agreement for visits to our homes by the police for a quick look around anytime they want. might want to give them a list of any prescibed drugs we,re taking and have a nice little chat about how we feel about whats going on in the country.
i don,t think so
Click to expand...
No, no, no, no, no. Go back and read post #1
 
Ken C said:
Any proposal to "regulate" either the weapon or the individual needs to address the following questions;

Does it keep guns out of the hands of criminals ?

Does it make criminals out of current legal owners ?

A "No" on the first and/or a "Yes" on the second should disqualify the proposal from any further consideration.

Every 2A discussion I have starts with those two questions. It's interesting to listen to the deflection tactics.

So, does a national "FOID' do either of the above ? "No" and "Yes", further discussion is not productive.
Click to expand...
I believe the answers are "No" and "No".

The former is not accomplished by any measure short of elimination of all firearms of all types, followed by archery gear, blowguns and eventually, rocks. But I hoped it would firm up protection for the 2nd Amendment.

The latter, I wish someone would explain to me. (The original post specified -per the 2nd Amendment- that ALL PERSONS are entitled to own any firearm. Loss of the right is as it is now, felony conviction, etc. Ordinary citizens maintain their right forever, no renewal, no fee, no action on the citizen's part whatsoever required. Birthright.)

Lost Sheep
 
JRWhit said:
Lost Sheep, I see what you intend to accomplish,but I just don't see how it could work. I believe as shown here public support will probably be negative.
Click to expand...
Point WELL taken.
But at the real issue on this, any sort of regulation is like a seed. It only grows from where it's planted. It may start as you stated, but would eventually have additions as to what constitutes revoking the rights of a citizen.
Click to expand...
Yeah. "Legislative creep."

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" (attributed to Thomas Jefferson)
Further more, this falls under the misconception that the regulation of law abiding people is the answer to our problem with law breakers. I don't believe that was your intent but more a method of getting support of the anti gun crowd and at the same time protecting supporters of the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...
Perceptive. I think you are the first to mention it.
It would be a novel concept, but I just don't see that it would work and in the end leave us worse off. Your intent is a good one, keep thinking.
Click to expand...
Thank you, JRWhit. I will try to upgrade the quality of my thinking.

Lost Sheep
 
Last edited:
I suppose it might bear pointing out that criminals who buy guns illegally can and do buy from criminals who sell guns illegally. This idea would not change that. Guns sales in crack houses at midnight have never involved id cards, and still wouldn't. What, then, does the card system accomplish beyond regulating the already self-regulating?

Again, if you believe we should assume the right, just assume it. There is no illegal way for a legal person to obtain a legal gun; there is no legal way for an illegal person to obtain an illegal gun. Attempting to regulate the former is oppressive and unnecessary; attempting to regulate the latter is largely impossible and remediatable only by punishment.

You're not trying to regulate the self-regulating, which is to your credit and why I don't view your proposal as infringement. What you are suggesting is the creation of a bureaucracy that cannot achieve its stated purpose, and at unknown expense and with unforeseeable consequences.

I for one view the creation of a regulatory body as a granting of power, given up by citizens for the use of bureaucrats. Power given away is often all but impossible to take back, it is often all but impossible to hold individaully resposible for their actions those bureaucrats hiding behind policies of their own making; and of course, power corrupts. This is why it was truly said that government which governs least governs best.

I don't view your proposal as abusive or wrong... just expensive, unnecessary, ineffective, and fraught with potential for future abuse.
 
Last edited:
+1 on what Texan Scott said!

And I like that sig line....
If you keep sheep, have dogs. Coyotes don't respect fences, only teeth.
Click to expand...

If you keep guns, have stones. Politicians don't respect rights, only stones.
 
Thank you, JRWhit. I will try to upgrade the quality of my thinking.
Click to expand...
It's not a quality problem, didn't mean to give that impression. You see a problem and your looking at solutions. That's never a bad thing.Every idea starts somewhere.
 
Lost Sheep, it has finally dawned on me that what you are actually trying to do is eliminate the necessity for, and potential abuse of, the federal NICS system.

May I be so bold as to suggest that the NICS system IS unnecessary, and its very existence (an attempt by the feds to regulate that which our Founders forbade them to infringe) IS an unconstitutional abuse of power?

Some will object that without NICS, criminals would have easy access to guns; I can only point out that obviously they already DO. It might sound like a fine idea, but I ask you, has it worked?

If you believe we should assume every citizen's rkba, just ASSUME IT.

If you believe we need to do away with the present NICS system, just DO AWAY WITH IT.
 
Last edited:
Its pretty d*mned simple.

This has nothing to do with 'safety' at all.

Despite all the emotional uproar and knee jerk reactions, youre much more likely to be struck by lightening, be killed by a club or hammer, be killed by being prescribed the wrong medications, and much more likely to be killed in a car accident . . . . than be a victim in a mass shooting.

Bottomline, - hardcore antis want the American people disarmed.

All these idiotic 'reasonable proposals' merely divert peoples attention from what's going on. Its just a big psy-op and some seem to be falling for it. What they need to do is study history. The antis will keep coming back for more. Only the USA and Switzerland recognizes the citizens right to keep and bear arms by written law.
 
Lost Sheep

"This idea was SUPPOSED to be a draconian move in SUPPORT of the right to keep and bear arms."

"armoredman, did you not read the part about this being a "shall issue" card?"

"This is shall issue, revocable only for cause, access restricted and penalties for governmental mis-use."

"The existence of the database affirms the right just as the 2nd amendment affirms the right."

"The idea of the database is to remove the whole waiting period, background check, asking permission of your local sheriff to buy and the other hurdles to our rights that are already (unconstitutionally) in the way. It puts the hurdles in the way of the anti-gun and protects the gun owner (and prospective gun owner)."
Click to expand...

Just a few excerpts from one of your posts...

Shall issue doesn't mean anything. Once data is collected on you as a gun owner and perhaps the guns you have...guess who's doors get knocked on for a turn-in? No, I'm not referring to the current administration, but how about some administration 10 years down the line when our economy is along the lines of the current Greeks or Spaniards? I'm sure the bulk of folks don't think that's possible, but ask someone 100 years ago what the odds are of having a black president or 50 years ago on gay marriage.

Once you start keeping track of who is able to purchase/own guns, you might as well hand in your 1st Amendment rights, too.
 
Dear Lost Sheep, thank you for the great discussion as usual even though I am not sold on the idea myself. However, it is important that we do have and keep an open mind to discussion itself. If we lose the ability to communicate even on the side of the RKBA, then we are indeed divided and conquered.
 
I think some of you have missed Lost Sheep's point. His idea, as it's evolved, gives EVERYONE a card whether they own guns or not, and marks it No Guns if they become prohibited. The same card could be used to denote loss of voting or driving status. It would not register guns, or indicate that the holder owned guns, only that they weren't barred from doing so. It sounds like a fine idea, and completely innocuous (if not later twisted and abused).

I actually applaud his willingness to float the idea, take the heat for it, and try to find a working solution by openly and fairly engaging on the issue.

My only problem with his proposed solution thus far (as I've tried my best to explain) is the expense and potential future risk of a creating a new federal bureaucracy that actually accomplishes nothing we couldn't already do by simply assuming by law the right of free citizens and eliminating federal infringement.

In other words, don't REregulate... DEregulate.
 
Last edited:
Not sure if this has been covered ,BUT, if you give the Federal government the right over all gunowners it would be easy for the Feds in power at the time (like now) to change one law and quickly affect everyone such as with registration or confiscation.

As long as 50 different states can hold onto their own respective laws and we don't give ultimate power to the Feds , it would be a lot harder to change all 50 states. Voters would be in a uproar and use favorable states as examples for pro-gun issues. State politicians would be more afraid of losing their offices and their figurative heads!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Illinois: Cook County's Gun Confiscation Squad
Replies
7
Views
1K
JTHunter
JTHunter
P
  • Locked
Illinois Concealed Carry Bill (proposed by the dark side)
Replies
24
Views
2K
ilbob
ilbob
S
  • Locked
Illinois SP Overstepping Authority by Refusing to Issue FOID Cards to Youths
Replies
11
Views
1K
ilbob
ilbob
O
  • Locked
IL felony FOID card
Replies
7
Views
1K
XavierBreath
XavierBreath
S
  • Locked
(Kali) Firearm Database Breached
Replies
4
Views
387
WilderBill
W
Back
Top