Poll: Would you be opposed to a program such as this?

[stevelyn]

Too many compromises have been accepted. Licensing is defacto registration and would set the precedent of gun ownership being a priviledge rather than a Constitutional right, subject to government elimination.
In every jurisdiction that required licenses, government has ratcheted up the requirements effectively reducing the number of gun owners, types of guns that can be owned, the number of guns that can be owned, caliber restrictions, etc.

I like the idea of a collectors license allowing purchase of modern firearms.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

NO, emphatically.

We already have a license to own firearms, it was written over 200 years ago, and was paid for a few years earlier with the blood of revolutionaries.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Nah. There should be no more restrictions on the purchase and ownership of guns than on the purchase and ownership of...

(...trying to think of something totally unregulated here, bear with me...)[/i[

...toilet paper. That's it.



Sorry, but I'm leery of comprimise.

- Chris

 

[Waitone]

Whatever.

I you accept a two tiered firearms possession system as being valid, have at it.

Criminals use a system that in no way hinders their ability to acquire, own, and operate firearms. Everyone else jumps through hoops.

You like that? Knock yourself out.

 

[greyhound]

That system is obviously not compatible with what the 2A means, and if I lived in Texas or another gun friendly state I'd probably shout out a big "Hell, no".

But I live in Maryland, so it sounds like a dream come true.

Obviously I shouldn't accept a compromise that goes against the 2A, but being realistic and pragmatic has its place.

Remember that in Natedog's original question he states that existing firearm laws are not likely to be repealed, and unfortunately I agree, especially at the state level. Maybe the AWB will sunset, but its really state laws that restrict or allow the RKBA. As an example: the AWB might sunset, but the leftists in Maryland are trying to push a state ban to take over in case it does. How the hell can they square that as being in compliance with the 2A?

 

[Ian]

Most emphatically no.

One of my big pet peeves is the common acceptance (by pro-gun people) of the validity of a 21 age limit on various things. If I were to accept that permit, I would instantly lose a lot, simply because I'm 6 months younger than this magic age that someone pulled out of thin air.

Not to mention that I'd lose my Enfield, as it has the capacity to fire incindiary and explosive ammo (I have some, too). And every .30-06 out there would be toast for the same reason, as well as probably every .308, 8x57, and 7.62x54R.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Without reading any of the posts -- I'll just say that "registration leads to confiscation." I'm sure others have said the same.

 

[Jeff Thomas]

Here's your problem: As noted above, licensing is de facto registration. Registration is unacceptable because, historically, governments have used such data to confiscate firearms and harrass / kill their population. It isn't a question of if ... it is simply a question of when. Give governments such power, and the conclusion is foreordained.

There is a creative alternative, though I'll apologize up front for not remembering the author's name ... came out of CA as I recall ... perhaps a radio host.

Retain a database of those who may not possess firearms ... e.g. using our current definitions ... felons, mentally insane, various foreign nationals, etc. When you go to buy a gun you must positively identify yourself (gets a little sticky here), the seller checks the database, and if you're not on it, then voila ... you've bought a gun. No retention of your name (another sticky spot).

Certainly there are some people who should not possess a firearm. The trick is to have a system where we confirm the ability of a particular individual to own a firearm without keeping a list of actual buyers / owners. As long as anti-self defense zealots reject history's lessons, and demand to keep such lists, then we will not make progress on this front. However, if those wackos finally decide to compromise on their side, then perhaps there could be progress someday.

I'm not optimistic.

Regards from TX

 

[Intune]

Better yet, why don't we just return to the way it was in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? Buy gun, buy ammo, shoot gun. Misuse gun, go to prison. Get out of prison, buy gun, buy ammo, shoot gun. Misuse gun, go to prison. Repeat until you stop going to prison, are executed, or you die naturally.

Jimpeel nailed it. No paper, use responsibly or suffer.

 

[Mulliga]

Licensing = bad. Simple as that.

First, the Feds could easily raise license fees to where only the wealthy can pay them (every gun owner knows how Clinton gutted FFLs with incredibly high fees).

Second, they'll know every single gun owner.

Third, it implies the right does not exist. (So does a CCW, but out of practicality, we accept it).

 

[Brian Dale]

Never. There should be two groups of people in this country with respect to guns.

1) People who are in prisons or locked mental facilities, and

2) People who can buy any weapons they want, carry them however they want, and shoot whatever, wherever, or if they have to, whoever they may shoot, and be held responsible for the results.

I'm not practicing that at present, because I don't want to be put in Group 1.

 

[Zonamo]

How many already have a license?

As a long time lurker, first time poster, I want to weigh in on this topic.

Despite so many seeing a "license" as a betrayal of the second amendment, the reality is that many here already have a "license." Unless you live in the state of Vermont, you must apply and obtain a permit/license to carry a concealed weapon.

And despite the need for a license, CCW has been seen by most as an improvement in self defense rights.

Rather than speak out negatively against the idea of this thread, I would rather see real improvement to the current system that would expand the purpose and utility of these permits.

First is the question of national reciprocity. Some states grant reciprocity for a permit, but most do not. A CCW permit that meets a standard should have mandatory recognition nationally, just as other states must accept my operator's permit for driving. Those states that do not comply should be subject to funding penalties, just as states were punished by witholding road funds if they did not comply with national standards.

A second opportunity for expanding the benefit of the current legislative support for CCW would be to elminate purchase restrictions nationally for permit holders. The CCW permit in most states already eliminates the need for a background check when purchasing a firearm locally. Expand this nationally as well. If one can purchase a gun locally because a permit has already pre-validated your right, you should be able to order a gun directly from any dealer without having to go through an FFL.

For those that consider a permit a violation of the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms should not be inhibited by the permit system. Just like it is now, you should continue to have a right to purchase and keep arms without a permit.

I am sure the folks here can think of other opportunities to increase gun rights with the current permit system So I voted for the poll with reservations.

Expanding our current permit system would be a good thing, as long as it does not register guns, and as long as it isn't required to keep and bear arms.

 

[Quartus]

Okay, I'll suggest an improvement:

Stop defining "compromise" as giving up freedom in exchange for the statists being a little less nasty to us for the next 6 months until they make their next demand. Oh, excuse me, their next "reasonble suggestion for ending the violence".


Here's the next improvement: Stop defining surrender of our basic freedoms as "pragmatism".


Pragmatism is getting a little freedom BACK here, and a little freedom BACK there, instead of whining that you want all or nothing.


No more compromise. No more surrender. No more congratulating ourselves on moving more slowly to the gas chambers.

The 2nd amendment grants me those options you mentioned(and more!),

No, sir, it does not. It does not grant you one thing. It recognizes a right that already exists. It further recognizes that that right cannot be granted by a state, and therefore cannot be abridged by a state.

 

[Peetmoss]

No I wouldn't be opposed to a program like this as a starting point. For someone who lives in the PRNY it would be a giant leap in the right direction. I would go for it as a steping stone. Get an inch take a mile. I think we have to try and make small steps, just like the enemy towards are ultimate goal.

 

[fjolnirsson]

"No, sir, it does not. It does not grant you one thing. It recognizes a right that already exists. It further recognizes that that right cannot be granted by a state, and therefore cannot be abridged by a state."

Very well put, sir. I stand corrected.
The politically correct mindset here in California creeps in, regardless of how one tries to be vigilant. It IS a disease. Something in the water, I think.

 

[tyme]

It's not ideal, but would anyone besides VT or AK residents who don't travel really oppose this if it were put to a vote?

I think there's much more room for this proposal to turn into VT and AK style carry than there is for shall-issue ccw to turn into VT style "no papers" ccw -- in states with heavily populated cities. I think very shortly after this proposal went into effect, the antis would all melt in the light.

 

[Publicola]

Registration &/or licensing conflicts with the 2nd Article of the Bill or Rights, therefore it's a no-no.

Alter the 2nd Article of the Bill of Rights to allow for licensing &/or registration & then we'll discuss how it's a bad policy decision as well as a violation of our Natural Rights. But first you'd have to alter said amendment.

Therefore, I fail to see how anyone can claim to be pro-2nd amendment & find licensing &/or registration acceptable.

 

[355sigfan]

someone is old enough to die for their country, they should be able to recieve ALL the benefits of citizenship
END

I agree however I think the draft age should be raised as well as the legal adult status to 20 or 21. Have one legal adult age for everything.
Pat

 

[Moparmike]

I would be vehemently opposed to such an idea. Now if you make that age 18, I might be a little happier, but I still have a dream about kids taking their singleshot .22lrs to school for lockup in the office, so that they can hunt on the way home. If it was 21, I would be an instant felon.

This arbitrary age crap has to stop.

 

[355sigfan]

The problem I see is that 18 year olds simply are not grown up enough as a group to be trusted. Thats my opinion.
Pat

 

[tyme]

355sigfan, okay, how about raising the driving age to 21? You know there are 16-year-olds careening around in multi-ton vehicles at this very moment?

 

[Quartus]

You know, every time this 18 year old vs. 21 year old argument comes up here, the younger crowd does a convincing job of showing why they are not adults yet.

The politically correct mindset here in California creeps in, regardless of how one tries to be vigilant. It IS a disease. Something in the water, I think.

<sigh> Yes it does. I'm glad I got out. Eternal vigilance, friend.

 

[Moparmike]

For the record, I am 20 for the next 6mo.

You know, every time this 18 year old vs. 21 year old argument comes up here, the younger crowd does a convincing job of showing why they are not adults yet.

That sir, is bait. And I refuse to take it.

The problem I see is that 18 year olds simply are not grown up enough as a group to be trusted. Thats my opinion.

So 18yr olds are fine with MBR's, Full-auto rifles (I believe the NFA has 18 for age restriction, please correct if wrong), sniper-rifles which with enough time and money could knock off a flea on a dog's back at 500yds, and driving multi-ton vehicles at any desired speed, but owning a pistol is not ok. Hmm, I dont seem to follow.


For the record, I had a drivers licsense at 14, and currently own a rifle, a shotgun that sits cruiser ready, and a 10mm Witness. Combined, they have hurt or killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car, as long as you dont count my shoulder.

 

[355sigfan]

355sigfan, okay, how about raising the driving age to 21? You know there are 16-year-olds careening around in multi-ton vehicles at this very moment?

END

I worked as a traffic cop for a while before going into drugs. Your post is not a help for your argument. 16 year olds account for more than their fair share of auto accidents. Don't give me any ideas. In Europe you have to be 18 to drive and the testing is much tougher. They have far less fatal accidents. No I personally believe it should be one age standard and my belief is that it should be around 20 to 21. That should be for pistols and rifles, drinking voting, dying for ones country ext.
Pat

 

[Ian]

You know, every time this 18 year old vs. 21 year old argument comes up here, the younger crowd does a convincing job of showing why they are not adults yet.

I don't suppose you feel like giving us some examples that support that assertion, do you?

It's odd that you can trust 18-year-olds to drive, to defend the natiopn, and to kill Iraqis with all sorts of heavy weaponry, but you don't trust them to own pistols. You know that Indiana issues CCW permits to 18-year-olds? Hasn't been a problem at all.