PDA

View Full Version : What if...


Bruce
01-28-2009, 1:59 PM
What if a bill was introduced that would require all gun owners to be licensed, but that a licensed gun owner could buy and posess any type of firearm they wished,( full-auto, SBR, SBS, or whatever). Would you go along with that bill?

( Before I get trashed, I DO NOT support any such licensing proposal. Guns are our RIGHT. The above hypothetical "gun license" would be quite similar to the current driver's licenses in that you can pretty much buy and drive whatever vehicle you want, not what the government thinks you need.)

soopafly
01-28-2009, 2:02 PM
AW, HEYLL NAW....

AlexBreya
01-28-2009, 2:16 PM
As long as i could get the license, i'd go for it.

soopafly
01-28-2009, 2:17 PM
As long as i could get the license, i'd go for it.
And when Big G revokes your license, then what?

AlexBreya
01-28-2009, 2:20 PM
And when Big G revokes your license, then what?

then i would throw a fit and cry

soopafly
01-28-2009, 2:48 PM
then i would throw a fit and cry

:rofl2:

M. D. Van Norman
01-28-2009, 2:51 PM
If it covered unrestricted ownership and carry, I would be all for it. We’re already licensed and registered as it is, so we would lose nothing.

hawk1
01-28-2009, 2:54 PM
F that!

Maybe those that print newspapers, or hell even journalists, need to be licensed also? That would go over like a fart in church...

nobody_special
01-28-2009, 2:54 PM
The only license I would even consider obtaining would be a CCW license... maybe.

I will not register guns under any circumstances.

MolonLabe2008
01-28-2009, 3:01 PM
Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it say that I need a license to own a gun.....any gun.

So, to answer your question.....HELL NO!!!!

12voltguy
01-28-2009, 4:21 PM
If it covered unrestricted ownership and carry, I would be all for it. We’re already licensed and registered as it is, so we would lose nothing.


yup
they got my prints everytime I buy a gun & my $$$
they already have my prints for a CCW + my $$$

12voltguy
01-28-2009, 4:23 PM
If it covered unrestricted ownership and carry, I would be all for it. We’re already licensed and registered as it is, so we would lose nothing.


yup
they got my prints everytime I buy a gun & my $$$
they already have my prints for a CCW + my $$$

Suvorov
01-28-2009, 4:40 PM
It is all good in theory, but the reality is that if the Government GRANTS YOU SOMETHING, the same Government that TAKE IT AWAY! Remember the Bill of Rights restricts the Government, not the citizen. As long as the government is good, there is no problem, but once the government goes wrong - you have a BIG problem.

wildog8812
01-28-2009, 6:05 PM
And do they want my arm or my leg for the fee to get the license?

KWA-S
01-29-2009, 1:18 AM
Well, I think that if the license was as easy to get as a driver's license, which basically requires that you fill out a short multiple choice quiz about law/safety and demonstrate that you can use a gun safely (four rules, loading, unloading, storage) and could only be revoked if you did something really stupid (discharge in a crowded area, shooting under the influence) but you are eligible for the license again after 2-4 years (like current driver's license) then there is no way that that situation is worse than what we have now, and I would support it. Of course, we note that the final goal is to remove all restrictions (within reason) of owning and using a gun for lawful purposes. Better yet is if we incorporated the conditions on obtaining said license into a "Shooter's ed" class in high school and did away with the license. I wouldn't mind paying the extra tax to introduce the children to plinking.

Also, I know from lurking that my "all restrictions (within reason)" is going to have at least two or three people jump down my throat. I figure that you'd have to SPECIFICALLY define "within reason" to prevent the antis from using it against us, but I think certain things like waiting period on someones first machinegun/concealable weapon, loss of gun rights on repeat felons, etc are a good idea. We should have a thread where we would write what we think are good gun laws.

Seesm
01-29-2009, 1:39 AM
Hellzzzzzzz no... The 2nd amendment is the "RIGHT" to bare arms...

Mulay El Raisuli
01-29-2009, 11:23 AM
Hell no! The difference between driving & arms is that driving is NOT a right. That's why a license is allowable. Its the ONLY reason a license is allowable.

The Raisuli

nobody_special
01-29-2009, 11:44 AM
Hell no! The difference between driving & arms is that driving is NOT a right. That's why a license is allowable. Its the ONLY reason a license is allowable.
There is a right to travel, though, and I think there's a good argument to be made that driving is a right.

The point is, of course, that legislators don't care about your rights.

12voltguy
01-29-2009, 11:53 AM
Hellzzzzzzz no... The 2nd amendment is the "RIGHT" to bare arms...

ya.............as long as we register them, go through a dealer fill out forms, give a thumb print, pay fees to the run a D.R.O.S., pay fees for a handgun softy cert, pay fees for a CCW
only allowed guns that those in power deem safe, new power people, new list of what is allowed to buy
yup it's a RIGHT alright...........wouldn't want to infringe on those by going through license process & have any gun we want as in the post topic....I'm sure you get my point, I know I understand what you are saying, but it's not much of a RIGHT anymore so much as a compromise, & since the people have let this happen already, I think the topic posters question would be best with a yes.
But I highly dought that will happen, we couldn't even get them to update the AW list so we could register our ARs and un-nueter them:(

Matt C
01-29-2009, 11:54 AM
Why not? Seriously? It would be a step forward from where we are now. Also the law would have to supersede any state laws.

Fate
01-29-2009, 12:16 PM
Why not? Seriously? It would be a step forward from where we are now. Also the law would have to supersede any state laws.
Get it passed, acquire mass quantities, get licensing struck down on 2nd Amendment grounds = Win.

Actually might be an easier legal fight.

yellowfin
01-29-2009, 12:19 PM
The biggest problem I can see is the adding of qualifications and huge expenses; an anti gun inclined government to follow, or even the same one, could make such a license cost $3000, be good for one year, can only pick up an application for it from one office that's open in one city per state only 2 days a week from 6-6:15 AM, etc.

Asphodel
01-29-2009, 12:27 PM
Yellowfin,

If $3K, why not $10K?........not to mention being required to carry a, say, $20 million liability bond with a private bonding company.

The basic concept is an old one, tho.......try an internet search of history sites, under 'poll taxes'.

cheers

Carla

Matt C
01-29-2009, 12:28 PM
Yellowfin,

If $3K, why not $10K?........not to mention being required to carry a, say, $20 million liability bond with a private bonding company.

The basic concept is an old one, tho.......try an internet search of history sites, under 'poll taxes'.

cheers

Carla

But you already have to pay.... So why not be able to get everything for one fee.

bohoki
01-29-2009, 2:25 PM
i got an idea bow about they have a giant gps butt plug you are required to insert then you can own and use any gun you want

Seesm
01-29-2009, 2:37 PM
ya.............as long as we register them, go through a dealer fill out forms, give a thumb print, pay fees to the run a D.R.O.S., pay fees for a handgun softy cert, pay fees for a CCW
only allowed guns that those in power deem safe, new power people, new list of what is allowed to buy
yup it's a RIGHT alright...........wouldn't want to infringe on those by going through license process & have any gun we want as in the post topic....I'm sure you get my point, I know I understand what you are saying, but it's not much of a RIGHT anymore so much as a compromise, & since the people have let this happen already, I think the topic posters question would be best with a yes.
But I highly dought that will happen, we couldn't even get them to update the AW list so we could register our ARs and un-nueter them:(

Yeah I agree...

N6ATF
01-30-2009, 12:42 AM
As long as that license costs me $1 and I am given my pick of surplus government arms (1 of each) for free, as long as only I have them.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-30-2009, 7:24 AM
There is a right to travel, though, and I think there's a good argument to be made that driving is a right.

The point is, of course, that legislators don't care about your rights.


The minor problem with this is no one has made that argument yet. At least, not with any effect. And of course, that argument never will have any effect because if driving ever does become a Right, then things like mandatory DUI checks (blowing in the balloon) go away. We can't have that because IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!! after all.

The major problem with this is it shows a weakening of the wall between what is permissible & what isn't. What is a Right & what isn't. I think that explains all the people here thinking that maybe a 1-stop license is a good way to go. We're so used to being jerked around in re driver's licenses & such that we've been primed to accept this for everything.

Add to this the jerking around we get when it comes to guns. Yes, we DO have to jump through hoops. We have to wait 10 days. We have to buy gun locks. We have to tolerate the "Safe Gun List" & other crap. But more than we don't have to like it, we don't have to accept it! Even more than that, we shouldn't accept this crap to the point that when someone proposes something MUCH worse (like this) we think that maybe it's OK.

There really is a difference between a Right & a privilege. The infringements mentioned above are just that, infringements. The proper approach isn't to look upon them as first steps that then lead us to accept something worse. The proper approach is to look at them as the first things we're going to do away with as soon as we can.

Again then, not just "no" to this idea, but HELL NO!!!!

The Raisuli

tgriffin
01-30-2009, 7:34 AM
No way in hell. Where is the poll?

gunshack
01-30-2009, 7:55 AM
I can't beleive some of these arguments here. "We're already getting shafted, so what's the difference what the color, size or shape of the shaft?"

How 'bout fighting to stop the shafting? Hmm?

8-Ball
01-30-2009, 8:20 AM
absolutely NO...!

we shouldn't need a CCW either... which, btw, is a good example of what the government can do to keep you from getting a license once they are allowed to provide and regulate them.

wake up folks...!!!

CHS
01-30-2009, 9:22 AM
I will not register guns under any circumstances.

I take it then, that you don't own any handguns in CA?

12voltguy
01-30-2009, 10:16 AM
I take it then, that you don't own any handguns in CA?

maybe he is going out of state, buying them pvt party like NV & just bringing them back. Guess if you want to be a felon it's his choice:confused::thumbsup::43:

nobody_special
01-30-2009, 11:17 AM
I take it then, that you don't own any handguns in CA?
maybe he is going out of state, buying them pvt party like NV & just bringing them back. Guess if you want to be a felon it's his choice
Instead of implying that I am a criminal (no, that's not at all offensive...), I suggest you look at my previous (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1354164&postcount=29) posts (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1326059&postcount=20) on this topic...

12voltguy
01-30-2009, 11:23 AM
Instead of implying that I am a criminal (no, that's not at all offensive...), I suggest you look at my previous (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1354164&postcount=29) posts (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1326059&postcount=20) on this topic...


Ya I'm going to search everybodys posts when they reply like you did:43::43::43::thumbsup:

nobody_special
01-30-2009, 11:42 AM
Ya I'm going to search everybodys posts when they reply like you did
I see.

So, without actually knowing anything at all, you'll publicly assume that I would commit a federal felony in order to avoid a misdemeanor... that I haven't committed in the first place? :nuts:

5968
01-30-2009, 11:47 AM
As long as i could get the license, i'd go for it.

WTF!

Bruce
01-30-2009, 12:00 PM
Instead of implying that I am a criminal (no, that's not at all offensive...), I suggest you look at my previous (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1354164&postcount=29) posts (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1326059&postcount=20) on this topic...

Nobody has to imply. You have confessed. See 12072(f)(2)PC.

nobody_special
01-30-2009, 12:06 PM
Nobody has to imply. You have confessed. See 12072(f)(2)PC.


Again, someone didn't do their homework (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1354164&postcount=29)...

:taz: :90:

A violation of 12072(f)(2) occurs 60 days after the handguns enter the state. If they are left out of state, no registration is required. :tt2:

M. D. Van Norman
01-30-2009, 12:10 PM
Here is the story, guys.

We must be licensed to legally purchase handguns in California. Said handguns must be registered, as well as any handguns recently imported. (Most firearms are also eventually registered by the federal BATFE.) We must be licensed in order to legally carry a loaded handgun.

We are already licensed, taxed, checked, and registered. I don’t like it, but that’s the way it is.

If licensing and registration are political bargaining chips that we can use to expand our legal privileges as lawful firearms owners, then we should use them. Let the gun-controllers pay us for what they already have. We would lose only the slim chance that our longarms won’t eventually be registered.

How hard is this to comprehend?

Nodda Duma
01-30-2009, 12:16 PM
A violation of 12072(f)(2) occurs 60 days after the handguns enter the state. If they are left out of state, no registration is required. :tt2:

That's what I assumed you were doing when you first posted. Surprised others didn't...

And I agree...an all-inclusive firearms license would be a dangerous blurring of the line between right and priviledge. It may be close to what we have in CA, but not the rest of the country.

-Jason

nobody_special
01-30-2009, 12:28 PM
And I agree...an all-inclusive firearms license would be a dangerous blurring of the line between right and priviledge. It may be close to what we have in CA, but not the rest of the country.

It's not so much a "blurring" as simply a confirmation that the RKBA is a privilege and not a right.

K1LLROI
01-30-2009, 12:32 PM
What if a bill was introduced that would require all gun owners to be licensed, but that a licensed gun owner could buy and posess any type of firearm they wished,( full-auto, SBR, SBS, or whatever). Would you go along with that bill?

( Before I get trashed, I DO NOT support any such licensing proposal. Guns are our RIGHT. The above hypothetical "gun license" would be quite similar to the current driver's licenses in that you can pretty much buy and drive whatever vehicle you want, not what the government thinks you need.)

History shows us that when mass registration occurs..then comes mass confiscation.
Then mass genocide..

12voltguy
01-30-2009, 1:04 PM
I see.

So, without actually knowing anything at all, you'll publicly assume that I would commit a federal felony in order to avoid a misdemeanor... that I haven't committed in the first place? :nuts:


no
read again
guy says you must not have any handguns in ca
I said that or you do in a not leagal way
your link to your posts say you do not have them in ca, so I guess your short answer to his question would have been, "correct I do not have any handguns in ca"
but you wanted the DRAMA so you got it:p:p:p

Cypren
01-30-2009, 1:40 PM
It's worth pointing out the history of Canada's gun laws:


1892 - Permit required to carry a pistol
1934 - Registration of all handguns
1951 - Registration of automatic weapons
1969 - Weapons divided into multiple categories of "non-restricted", "restricted" and "prohibited"
1977 - Automatic weapons classed as "prohibited". Ammunition sales regulated. Government-issued license required to purchase restricted firearms.
1991 - "Assault weapons" classified as restricted (e.g. AR-15) or prohibited (e.g. AK-47) if they share a common "origin and development" with military weapons. 28-day waiting period required for all weapon purchases. Standard-capacity magazines prohibited; pistols limited to 10 rounds and rifles to 5.
1995 - All firearms required to be registered. All firearm purchases require government license. License issued only with membership in an approved shooting club or target range. Registered firearms cannot be possessed or transported except directly to or from an owner's home, business and licensed range.
Present - Liberal Party has a blanket ban on all civilian handgun ownership as part of their core platform and will likely push hard to implement it in the event they regain a majority.

And it all started with simple premise that prohibiting weapons wasn't necessary as long as their owners were licensed.

A reminder to everyone: the Constitution protects our right to keep and bear arms, and limits Congress' ability to regulate anything, not the other way around.

CA_Libertarian
01-30-2009, 1:44 PM
( Before I get trashed, I DO NOT support any such licensing proposal. Guns are our RIGHT. The above hypothetical "gun license" would be quite similar to the current driver's licenses in that you can pretty much buy and drive whatever vehicle you want, not what the government thinks you need.)

First off, I cannot own/drive any vehicle I want. I want a humvee with a 50-cal mounted on the roof, and not the crappy knockoff "Hummer" they sell, I want a real humvee. Also, I'll take 2 M1 Abrams tanks. The fact is that the government heavily regulates what we're allowed to drive. "Public safety" and "environmental awareness" are the most common excuses for this regulation. (Sound familiar? Gotta regulate guns for public safety! More recently: gotta ban that lead ammo, it's bad for the environment!)

Driving is treated as a privilege. Lost your job and can't pay child support? There goes your driver's license! Didn't get that jury summons in the mail? There goes your drivers license! You can expect a gun privilege permit to be treated the same: do anything that any bureaucrat dislikes and they yank your permit.

We already allow WAY too much infringement on our rights. Adding another layer of 'privilege' does more harm. The idea of losing a right for a privilege is just stupid. I can only speculate that those who would buy into such BS are those that have lost hope in our fight for restoring our gun rights. Surely, with such a 'permit' program in place, the fight would be lost.

M. D. Van Norman
01-30-2009, 2:14 PM
I’ll say this one more time. We are already licensed, taxed, checked, and registered.

nobody_special
01-30-2009, 2:17 PM
I’ll say this one more time. We are already licensed, taxed, checked, and registered.
I'm not licensed, checked or registered.

ElvenSoul
01-30-2009, 2:20 PM
they would just make the lic as easy to get as a ccw in the OC...no thanks

M. D. Van Norman
01-30-2009, 2:36 PM
I’m not licensed, checked or registered.

Haven’t bought (or carried) a gun lately, have you?

leitung
01-30-2009, 2:56 PM
No, the idea is that then the goberment issues the licences like they do with ccw's right now. They will throw something like good cause in the law, and then the goberment will use it as political favors, leaving the non well connected people like myself not being able to obtain guns. That is the idea about licencing and registration that gun owners don't like. It's another control measure.

nobody_special
01-30-2009, 2:58 PM
Haven’t bought (or carried) a gun lately, have you?

Not since I moved to California. But this illustrates the point: long guns are not licensed or registered at all. Is the HSC considered a license? Otherwise, I don't see where a license is required to buy or own a handgun either.

At the moment, a carry license is not available to me (and I'm not sure I'd get one even the DoJ handed them out on the street corner... but that's another matter). Beyond that, I think Cypren's post provides an excellent warning against capitulating on licensing and registration schemes.

M. D. Van Norman
01-30-2009, 3:01 PM
No, the idea is that then the goberment issues the licences like they do with ccw’s right now. They will throw something like good cause in the law, and then the goberment will use it as political favors, leaving the non well connected people like myself not being able to obtain guns.…

They can do that as easily now as they could when considering a new licensing system.

The gambit is to offer licensing and registration in exchange for unrestricted ownership and carry. We wouldn’t lose, because we are already licensed and registered.

nobody_special
01-30-2009, 3:08 PM
We wouldn’t lose, because we are already licensed and registered.
But we aren't. I'm willing to bet that the majority of calgunners are not licensed. And I'm sure there are plenty of unregistered handguns too, purchased legally before registration was required.

I'm for rolling back the registration law, not expanding it. Registration serves no purpose but to tell the state exactly who to target if more restrictive laws are passed.

M. D. Van Norman
01-30-2009, 3:21 PM
Not since I moved to California.…

You have yours, so the rest of us be damned?

The HSC is a purchasing license in all but name.

Again, if a new licensing system let us do more than we may now, I would support it, even though I generally oppose licensing and registration. It would a step in the right direction. If the politicians then tried to retract it, they would have hell to pay.

M. D. Van Norman
01-30-2009, 3:25 PM
I’m willing to bet that the majority of calgunners are not licensed. And I’m sure there are plenty of unregistered handguns too, purchased legally before registration was required.

I don’t know about the majority, but all of my firearms were purchased through licensed transactions, and all of my handguns are registered. I was 19 years old when the private-party “loophole” was closed in California.

parcours
01-30-2009, 4:04 PM
Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it say that I need a license to own a gun.....any gun.

So, to answer your question.....HELL NO!!!!


++1

Cypren
01-30-2009, 5:01 PM
I don’t know about the majority, but all of my firearms were purchased through licensed transactions, and all of my handguns are registered. I was 19 years old when the private-party “loophole” was closed in California.
I'm in the same boat as you -- registered and tagged by the state. That doesn't mean I have to like it, and it doesn't mean I want other people to be marked for confiscation (which is the only purpose of state registration, whether or not its proponents admit it -- they can already trace gun purchases by DROS). It just means I preferred to be registered, knowing that I can leave the state and escape their grasp (and will soon, in all likelihood, given the deteriorating liberty and economic conditions here), to being defenseless.

I understand your strong temptation to say, "we're not giving them anything they don't already have on us", but please do keep in mind that we Californians are unusually rights-deprived (oppressed?), not representative of the average American.

nobody_special
01-31-2009, 12:39 AM
I don’t know about the majority, but all of my firearms were purchased through licensed transactions, and all of my handguns are registered. I was 19 years old when the private-party “loophole” was closed in California.
The dealer is licensed; ordinary gun buyers are not, though arguably the HSC is a form of licensing. Your handguns are registered but that is not necessary for long guns, and there are some people with (legally) unregistered handguns in California.

So the DoJ has your number, and many others; that's not a sufficient reason to sell out the rest. It is a good reason to lobby against the registration law.

Registration serves no legitimate purpose. Given the political reality of California it only benefits the prohibitionists, by providing the DoJ with a list of people to target when the next ban is passed. It has happened before in this state with SKS rifles, has it not?

12voltguy
01-31-2009, 7:13 AM
The dealer is licensed; ordinary gun buyers are not, though arguably the HSC is a form of licensing. Your handguns are registered but that is not necessary for long guns, and there are some people with (legally) unregistered handguns in California.

So the DoJ has your number, and many others; that's not a sufficient reason to sell out the rest. It is a good reason to lobby against the registration law.

Registration serves no legitimate purpose. Given the political reality of California it only benefits the prohibitionists, by providing the DoJ with a list of people to target when the next ban is passed. It has happened before in this state with SKS rifles, has it not?
:confused::confused::confused:

hvengel
01-31-2009, 10:50 AM
Also keep in mind that SCOTUS has NEVER allowed for any other enumerated (IE. as in listed in the constitution which makes it a fundamental) right to be licensed or taxed. NEVER not once ever. They have consistently ruled this way going back many decades and there is tons of case law on this subject with regard to other enumerated rights. The case law on this is crystal clear. That is why churches are not taxed or licensed. There is no way that we should even consider giving even a nanometer on this. No way No how ever.

Now that RKBA has been declared to be a fundamental right by SCOTUS we have very powerful legal arguments to start pushing these infringements back. Anyone who argues that perhaps we can compromise with the other side by giving up something in return for them giving up something is playing a fools game. The other side does not view this the same way and anything that they give up they will end up calling a "loop hole" and they will push to get back what they gave up "for the children". You can not make a bargain with the devil and expect him to keep his end of the bargain and it is foolish to even consider doing such a thing.

Matt C
01-31-2009, 10:54 AM
Also keep in mind that SCOTUS has NEVER allowed for any other enumerated (IE. as in listed in the constitution which makes it a fundamental) right to be licensed or taxed. NEVER not once ever. They have consistently ruled this way going back many decades and there is tons of case law on this subject with regard to other enumerated rights. The case law on this is crystal clear. That is why churches are not taxed or licensed. There is no way that we should even consider giving even a nanometer on this. No way No how ever.

Now that RKBA has been declared to be a fundamental right by SCOTUS we have very powerful legal arguments to start pushing these infringements back. Anyone who argues that perhaps we can compromise with the other side by giving up something in return for them giving up something is playing a fools game. The other side does not view this the same way and anything that they give up they will end up calling a "loop hole" and they will push to get back what they gave up "for the children". You can not make a bargain with the devil and expect him to keep his end of the bargain and it is foolish to even consider doing such a thing.

"[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." - SCOTUS (In Heller)

I'd get a license if it let me do that.

12voltguy
01-31-2009, 12:42 PM
Also keep in mind that SCOTUS has NEVER allowed for any other enumerated (IE. as in listed in the constitution which makes it a fundamental) right to be licensed or taxed. NEVER not once ever. They have consistently ruled this way going back many decades and there is tons of case law on this subject with regard to other enumerated rights. The case law on this is crystal clear. That is why churches are not taxed or licensed. There is no way that we should even consider giving even a nanometer on this. No way No how ever.

Now that RKBA has been declared to be a fundamental right by SCOTUS we have very powerful legal arguments to start pushing these infringements back. Anyone who argues that perhaps we can compromise with the other side by giving up something in return for them giving up something is playing a fools game. The other side does not view this the same way and anything that they give up they will end up calling a "loop hole" and they will push to get back what they gave up "for the children". You can not make a bargain with the devil and expect him to keep his end of the bargain and it is foolish to even consider doing such a thing.


I hear what you are saying
now tell me why we have all the rules in place to purchase guns?
& how would a better rule, licence be worse then what we have now?????????:confused:
Doesn't really matter, as this was just a made up topic, I dought we could ever get it passed, we gun owners can't even agree so it's easy to see how these laws got passed:(

M. D. Van Norman
01-31-2009, 2:27 PM
This is all hypothetical, and in my speculation, I’m assuming a new licensing scheme only for California. Obviously, it would never fly in states that don’t labor under our burdens.

That said, the old-timers who think they aren’t on a list somewhere wouldn’t have to get the new license. Obviously, they don’t need more guns and aren’t interested in legal carry. They already have theirs, so the war is over as far as they’re concerned … at least until the bogeyman of general confiscation comes to their doors, which it never will.

Meanwhile, a new shall-issue license that allowed us “youngsters” to legally keep and bear any firearm we wanted would be good thing.