PDA

View Full Version : National Gun ID


fortdick
01-08-2013, 10:38 AM
A friend and I have discussed the gun control issue ad nauseum. He had proposed a national gun license/ID thing. He is as strong a Second Amendment supporter as any I know. Does his idea have any merit?

Why not establish a national gun owner registry that permits people to receive an identification card to be used to buy and sell guns. Anyone can apply, free of charge, for a gun owner I.D., and the FBI could perform background checks on each applicant. Once cleared, the individual may take their I.D. to any gun shop and purchase a firearm with no waiting period. The only responsibility the dealer would have is to verify the I.D.

Set a standard of what may preclude an individual from owning a gun and provide an appeal process for those denied. Individuals convicted of a felony or hospitalized for mental health reasons may have their I.D. revoked via due process.

This is a simple process that would reduce the illegal sales of firearms, free dealers of the background requirements and waiting periods and free legitimate gun owners of the hassles of buying a firearm.

tcrpe
01-08-2013, 10:39 AM
http://www.tattoostime.com/images/236/forehead-barcode-tattoo.jpg

nothinghere2c
01-08-2013, 10:40 AM
we already have a national ID. Its called a drivers license or some other proof of who you are. No other bloated system is needed.

donny douchebag
01-08-2013, 10:42 AM
Because once cleared people will never do anything bad.

Hoooper
01-08-2013, 10:48 AM
is this supposed to be required for any purchase, or just if you want to? Kind of like the "CLEAR" line that they tried to do at the airport? You would be optionally registering in order to not have to wait, and if you dont want to register you just go through what we go through now.

odysseus
01-08-2013, 10:56 AM
What you discussed here conflicts with Constitutional Rights. The 2A is not a privilege, subject to requirements of people having to become registered by the governmental and permitted to then only be allowed to practice what is a free right to bear arms. It is the same as speech, and the freedom to practice religion.

Your "Set a standard of what may preclude an individual from owning a gun" is outright unconstitutional. You can't "preclude" people from an inalienable right. They must commit a crime and be ruled in court on this, or be ruled mentally unfit by a Judge. It is abhorrent to think people go around thinking we should just have rules that preclude away rights of citizens.

We already have established background checks for felons. The same prohibitions are made for those declared mentally unfit.

Nothing you wrote here would prevent a criminal intent on criminal behavior from illegally obtaining a weapon and using it. Like in Newtown, the criminal stole the weapons from his mother, whom also paid a price by being killed for that too. So fundamentally what is all that you wrote trying to accomplish?

A friend and I have discussed the gun control issue ad nauseum. He had proposed a national gun license/ID thing. He is as strong a Second Amendment supporter as any I know. Does his idea have any merit?

Why not establish a national gun owner registry that permits people to receive an identification card to be used to buy and sell guns. Anyone can apply, free of charge, for a gun owner I.D., and the FBI could perform background checks on each applicant. Once cleared, the individual may take their I.D. to any gun shop and purchase a firearm with no waiting period. The only responsibility the dealer would have is to verify the I.D.

Set a standard of what may preclude an individual from owning a gun and provide an appeal process for those denied. Individuals convicted of a felony or hospitalized for mental health reasons may have their I.D. revoked via due process.

This is a simple process that would reduce the illegal sales of firearms, free dealers of the background requirements and waiting periods and free legitimate gun owners of the hassles of buying a firearm.

fortdick
01-08-2013, 11:10 AM
is this supposed to be required for any purchase, or just if you want to? Kind of like the "CLEAR" line that they tried to do at the airport? You would be optionally registering in order to not have to wait, and if you dont want to register you just go through what we go through now.

That is a good idea. Make it voluntary.

They already know who owns guns, so what is the harm in getting an ID that pure learns your background check?

fortdick
01-08-2013, 11:11 AM
is this supposed to be required for any purchase, or just if you want to? Kind of like the "CLEAR" line that they tried to do at the airport? You would be optionally registering in order to not have to wait, and if you dont want to register you just go through what we go through now.

That is a good idea. Make it voluntary.

They already know who owns guns, so what is the harm in getting an ID that pre-clears your background check?

Wiz-of-Awd
01-08-2013, 11:21 AM
...You can't "preclude" people from an inalienable right. They must commit a crime and be ruled in court on this, or be ruled mentally unfit by a Judge. It is abhorrent to think people go around thinking we should just have rules that preclude away rights of citizens...

This is interesting actually.

If we look up the meaning and definition of inalienable right, we might find that not even this should preclude such rights from an individual.

A.W.D.

odysseus
01-08-2013, 11:24 AM
There is no doubt that even those provisions mentioned are not without debate as well for sure, at the very least in lifetime revoke and how they are administered. I agree.


If we look up the meaning and definition of inalienable right, we might find that not even this should preclude such rights from an individual.

drdarrin@sbcglobal.net
01-08-2013, 11:25 AM
That is a good idea. Make it voluntary.

They already know who owns guns, so what is the harm in getting an ID that pre-clears your background check?

Tell me again why I should be pre cleared in order to exercise my rights? Imagine the same restriction on the 1a?

How many of your rights are you willing to give up so that ignorant people are no longer afraid of you?

mrdd
01-08-2013, 11:29 AM
That is a good idea. Make it voluntary.

They already know who owns guns, so what is the harm in getting an ID that pre-clears your background check?

The federal government does not know who owns guns. There is no federal database of gun owners.

robcoe
01-08-2013, 11:33 AM
I had a similar idea, but different in a few key ways

In mine

Require firearms training for everybody, not just gun owners, not just people looking to own guns, everyone, only exemption is for people who for health reasons physically cannot complete the course. Make it similar to jury duty, because the right to a trial of your peers is guaranteed in the constitution everybody is required to serve on a jury when called, whether they ever have been on trial or ever expect to be on trial or not. A similar requirement to make the 2nd amendment work could be justified.

When the training starts they run an instant background check, during the training everybody is required to meet the same standards, if a practical portion is included a gun and ammo will be provided, if you don't pass you keep coming back until you pass(again, similar to jury duty, you keep coming back until you're done). At the conclusion of training you receive a national firearms card which certifies you can purchase and possess a gun, and also serves as a national voter ID card. From then until your next session you can buy firearms with no waiting period and nothing else required except showing the seller your card.

The reason I suggest making it a universal requirement instead of what most people suggest which is making it targeted at just gun owners and people looking to become gun owners is simple, if the targeted kind of training went through you would have a situation like DC, where while it is POSSIBLE to get a gun, the fees and requirements are so difficult and convoluted that it is for all practical purposes a ban. Basically people like Frankenfeinstein would make the requirements so tough for training that special forces soldiers wouldn't be able to pass. Also, this way they wouldn't have a list that would let them say "these people own guns, search their houses".

I am sure there are problems with this idea, but I see it as better than targeted training, ID cards and tests for JUST gun owners, and bans.

As an auxiliary benefit, a lot of people who would have been anti-gun simply because they had never had experience with them and have been told they are bad would have first hand experience, which I have found converts about 30-40% of them.

stix213
01-08-2013, 11:41 AM
Make it also a national CCW and I'm on board.

odysseus
01-08-2013, 11:42 AM
I am sure there are problems with this idea, but I see it as better than targeted training, ID cards and tests for JUST gun owners, and bans.

Yes, bad problems. Again you are requiring government permit and testing to practice what is an inalienable right. That would be like requiring basic grammar and logic testing to permit your right to free speech. Or a basic government test and permit so that you may practice your religion and open for public gatherings. Yeah, we can all joke about that - but no, bad idea.

The problem with inalienable rights, is a lot of people don't like other people being free to practice it. It scares a lot of people, erroneously.

And again, since all of this is being brought up due to the horrible and exceptional high crime we saw in Newtown - how would any of what you wrote protect against that (as so many politicians are trying to sell their infringement ideas on)?

It wouldn't. That's what. So what is the goal here? Why this discussion about this need?

robcoe
01-08-2013, 11:50 AM
Yes, bad problems. Again you are requiring government permit and testing to practice what is an inalienable right. That would be like requiring basic grammar and logic testing to permit your right to free speech. Or a basic government test and permit so that you may practice your religion and open for public gatherings. Yeah, we can all joke about that - but no, bad idea.

The problem with inalienable rights, is a lot of people don't like other people being free to practice it. It scares a lot of people, erroneously.

And again, since all of this is being brought up due to the horrible and exceptional high crime we saw in Newtown - how would any of what you wrote protect against that (as so many politicians are trying to sell their infringement ideas on)?

It wouldn't. That's what. So what is the goal here? Why this discussion about this need?

Because, while it is a right, all rights have restrictions on them. Some quick examples.

You have freedom of religion, but you cannot perform human sacrifice, even if the one to be sacrificed is willing.

There are restrictions on speech(fire in a crowded theater, inciting to riot, ect)

While the idea of complete, unfettered freedom for everything in the bill of rights is a wonderful idea, it aint gonna happen. The Supreme Court has been clear on that many many times.

What I suggested is a better solution that what we have now, a massive patchwork of confusing laws that are, in general far more restrictive than what I proposed.

I know this is unlikely to persuade you, but you will never get unlimited rights, you will always have to deal with a few restrictions.

So the question becomes, do you want 50 sets(actually more, since some citys have their own rules) of different, contradictory restrictions(can carry here, can buy there, can't buy there, can buy this but not that, 10 day wait here, 5 day here, 6 month there, license, no license, and on and on) or one set of rules that everybody goes along with that does not result in registrys of gun owners or end in confiscation and bans?

fortdick
01-08-2013, 11:54 AM
Tell me again why I should be pre cleared in order to exercise my rights? Imagine the same restriction on the 1a?

How many of your rights are you willing to give up so that ignorant people are no longer afraid of you?

Theorethically you are correct. The fact is, you have to wait to be cleared now. I am not talking about the legality of restricitions on the 2A. They ar already fact. I am talking about a reasonable alternative to further restrictions and outright bans.

You lost your rights when the first gun law was put on the books. The 4th Amendment went out the window with the Patriot Act. The 5th with the NDAA.

Reality is that we have to come up with a process that addresses everyone's concerns.

fortdick
01-08-2013, 11:56 AM
The federal government does not know who owns guns. There is no federal database of gun owners.

Are you kidding me? They have a database with every registered gun on it. California certainly does. To think otherwise is naive.

fortdick
01-08-2013, 11:59 AM
I had a similar idea, but different in a few key ways

In mine

Require firearms training for everybody, not just gun owners, not just people looking to own guns, everyone, only exemption is for people who for health reasons physically cannot complete the course. Make it similar to jury duty, because the right to a trial of your peers is guaranteed in the constitution everybody is required to serve on a jury when called, whether they ever have been on trial or ever expect to be on trial or not. A similar requirement to make the 2nd amendment work could be justified.

When the training starts they run an instant background check, during the training everybody is required to meet the same standards, if a practical portion is included a gun and ammo will be provided, if you don't pass you keep coming back until you pass(again, similar to jury duty, you keep coming back until you're done). At the conclusion of training you receive a national firearms card which certifies you can purchase and possess a gun, and also serves as a national voter ID card. From then until your next session you can buy firearms with no waiting period and nothing else required except showing the seller your card.

The reason I suggest making it a universal requirement instead of what most people suggest which is making it targeted at just gun owners and people looking to become gun owners is simple, if the targeted kind of training went through you would have a situation like DC, where while it is POSSIBLE to get a gun, the fees and requirements are so difficult and convoluted that it is for all practical purposes a ban. Basically people like Frankenfeinstein would make the requirements so tough for training that special forces soldiers wouldn't be able to pass. Also, this way they wouldn't have a list that would let them say "these people own guns, search their houses".

I am sure there are problems with this idea, but I see it as better than targeted training, ID cards and tests for JUST gun owners, and bans.

As an auxiliary benefit, a lot of people who would have been anti-gun simply because they had never had experience with them and have been told they are bad would have first hand experience, which I have found converts about 30-40% of them.

I can agree with you. IT is a fact that American soldiers in WWI were feared because of their marksmanship. Yamamoto advised against invading the U.S. because the Japanese would find agun "behind every blade of grass." Switzerland and Isreal do the way you propose.

That being said, I don't think we can compel someone to take firearms training against their will. Mandatory anything is bad, IMHO.

odysseus
01-08-2013, 12:08 PM
Your analogies and examples are unequal and thus not germane to the conversation, because the prohibitions you mentioned on those rights are crimes. You also cannot use your firearm in a way that commits a crime.

Which of course as I mentioned, nothing you wrote is going to stop a criminal. So again I ask, why then?

Because, while it is a right, all rights have restrictions on them. Some quick examples.

You have freedom of religion, but you cannot perform human sacrifice, even if the one to be sacrificed is willing.

There are restrictions on speech(fire in a crowded theater, inciting to riot, ect)

safewaysecurity
01-08-2013, 12:10 PM
Lots of anto freedom people popping out of the woodwork.. is this a serious question? What does something like a national registry solve? It doesn't stop mass shootings and crinals won't register. So all that you have accomplished is getting a list of law abiding folks that own guns and you could potentially have a situation where the gobt comes and takes em away just like they have done in every country with registration.

Capt.Dunsel
01-08-2013, 12:16 PM
Put my name on another list so when they decide they want my firearms they just come get them , no thanks.

And at one time here in the USA we did have mandatory firearms training , the DRAFT , remember that one?

odysseus
01-08-2013, 12:18 PM
Reality is that we have to come up with a process that addresses everyone's concerns.

That is fantasy in my opinion.

That is also why we have a Constitution to protect inalienable rights from people so "concerned" about them.

fortdick
01-08-2013, 12:18 PM
Lots of anto freedom people popping out of the woodwork.. is this a serious question? What does something like a national registry solve? It doesn't stop mass shootings and crinals won't register. So all that you have accomplished is getting a list of law abiding folks that own guns and you could potentially have a situation where the gobt comes and takes em away just like they have done in every country with registration.

I am just thinking of a way to assure our rights as gun owners. There already is a national registry for all registered guns. They are going to close the Gun Show loophole. Criminals will buy guns illegally, so the law only pertains to those that abide by it.

Not a single gun law will stop the crazy or the criminal from commiting an atrocity. Where I would like to see less gun restrictions and a universal right to carry, reality tells me that we have to beat the talking points of the gun grabbers, not the theoretical legalities of imposing these restrictions.

If we standardize the laws and eliminate the red tape, legitimate gun owners will benefit. Guns will be tracked regardless of what we do. Police need the ability to determine if a suspect owns a gun of a particular type used in a crime. I don't necessarily agree, but they do, and most people with them.

robcoe
01-08-2013, 12:24 PM
Your analogies and examples are unequal and thus not germane to the conversation, because the prohibitions you mentioned on those rights are crimes. You also cannot use your firearm in a way that commits a crime.

Which of course as I mentioned, nothing you wrote is going to stop a criminal. So again I ask, why then?

First part in Bold

In California, so is buying and selling a modern firearm without going through an FFL

In DC an NYC so is possessing an unregistered handgun

Both of these are crimes as well

As for the second part in bold

Try reading a little further next time since I specifically went over them.

Simplify firearms regulations to one national standard instead of dozens of state and local ones, many if not most of which are far more restrictive than what I proposed.

Reduce restrictions in places like California, DC, NYC ect

Requirements can be placed on people, unless you are going to claim that the draft we used to have(and still technically have to register for) was unconstitutional, and jury duty is unconstitutional(I would love to see you argue that one in front of a judge)

I'll ask you to answer a question, do you prefer what we have now, or what I proposed? because your fantasy of unlimited firearms rights will never happen.

odysseus
01-08-2013, 12:25 PM
I am just thinking of a way to assure our rights as gun owners. Criminals will buy guns illegally, so the law only pertains to those that abide by it.

Our rights are supposed to be assured already. It is ideas like being presented here where we continue to try to alter that fact which are the threats. And your statement here is true, criminals are going to obtain the guns regardless. So why then this further infringement on law abiding owners?

reality tells me that we have to beat the talking points of the gun grabbers, not the theoretical legalities of imposing these restrictions.

Beat the talking points of "gun grabbers" by accepting their arguments and implementing their ideas?

If we standardize the laws and eliminate the red tape, legitimate gun owners will benefit.

Another pure fantasy that tens upon tens of thousands of pages of law and regulation, along with public history tell you is not the case.

Saym14
01-08-2013, 12:25 PM
free ? how can the card be free? also you would need a backgorund check annually ?

Saym14
01-08-2013, 12:25 PM
free ? how can the card be free? also you would need a backgorund check annually ?

odysseus
01-08-2013, 12:30 PM
I'll ask you to answer a question, do you prefer what we have now, or what I proposed? because your fantasy of unlimited firearms rights will never happen.

You keep saying this, but it is erroneous about what you vaguely call my "fantasy".

However just to go down that road - you are wishing to impose further limitations on firearm rights in fundamental ways. So this is your proposition to lay more regulation over the existing regulation to which you seem to pander to acknowledge is infringement, but then wash over with more infringement?

:rolleyes:

fortdick
01-08-2013, 12:32 PM
free ? how can the card be free? also you would need a backgorund check annually ?

Since it is a right and not a privilege, they should not be allowed to cahrge us. Maybe a $5 fee for the card itself. No renewal requirements. The burden is on the govt. to show you are unsuited to owning a firearm. If convicted of a crime, it would be up to the govt. to rescind your right.

Like a register of voters. You stay on the approved list until something changes.

Foulball
01-08-2013, 12:34 PM
A friend and I have discussed the gun control issue ad nauseum. He had proposed a national gun license/ID thing. He is as strong a Second Amendment supporter as any I know. Does his idea have any merit?

Why not establish a national gun owner registry that permits people to receive an identification card to be used to buy and sell guns. Anyone can apply, free of charge, for a gun owner I.D., and the FBI could perform background checks on each applicant. Once cleared, the individual may take their I.D. to any gun shop and purchase a firearm with no waiting period. The only responsibility the dealer would have is to verify the I.D.

Set a standard of what may preclude an individual from owning a gun and provide an appeal process for those denied. Individuals convicted of a felony or hospitalized for mental health reasons may have their I.D. revoked via due process.

This is a simple process that would reduce the illegal sales of firearms, free dealers of the background requirements and waiting periods and free legitimate gun owners of the hassles of buying a firearm.

Not only no, but HELL NO!!!

:facepalm:

robcoe
01-08-2013, 12:35 PM
You keep saying this, but it is erroneous about what you vaguely call my "fantasy".

However just to go down that road - you are wishing to impose further limitations on firearm rights in fundamental ways. So this is your proposition to lay more regulation over the existing regulation to which you seem to pander to acknowledge is infringement, but then wash over with more infringement?

:rolleyes:

I do not "vaguely" say your call for no restrictions on firearms ownership a fantasy, I say it very clearly, you're argument that no restrictions are acceptable will never happen, don't believe me, go back and re-read Heller and McDonald.

Try reading what I wrote again, what I proposed overwrites the current regulations. No more 10 day wait, no more registration, no more roster, no more 6 month waits for permits in places like New York City. How is this MORE restrictive than what we currently have?

odysseus
01-08-2013, 12:37 PM
I do not "vaguely" say your call for no restrictions on firearms ownership a fantasy, I say it very clearly, you're argument that no restrictions are acceptable will never happen.

Where did I say "no restrictions"? You mean I say to let violent felons and mentally insane have guns? Where did I argue that?

pitbull30
01-08-2013, 12:42 PM
I keep seeing all these posts concerned about registration. Iím like the poster above who thought they were all registered here in CA. I also keep seeing people talking about boating accidents if confiscation comes to fruition. Are there that many guns that arenít registered because of the gun show loophole? PM me if you donít want to post. Iím not getting some of the arguments on this.

MustangSteveGT
01-08-2013, 12:44 PM
I remember when I was stationed in Illinois and my wife wanted to buy a gun, she had to apply for a FOID card in order to buy firearms and ammunition in Illinois. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOID_(firearms)

Grounds for disqualification include a conviction for a felony or for an act of domestic violence, a conviction for assault or battery within the last five years, or being the subject of an order of protection. The police also check an Illinois Department of Human Services database, to disqualify any applicant who has been adjudicated as a mental defective, or who has been a patient of a mental institution within the last five years.[3] Mental health professionals are required to inform state authorities about patients who display violent, suicidal or threatening behavior, for inclusion in the Human Services database.[4] The police may also check other sources of information. There are additional requirements for applicants under the age of 21.[5]

robcoe
01-08-2013, 12:48 PM
Where did I say "no restrictions"? You mean I say to let violent felons and mentally insane have guns? Where did I argue that?

Very well, I misinterpreted what you meant by this

There is no doubt that even those provisions mentioned are not without debate as well for sure

In regards to felons and the mentally ill.

my apologies for that

However

I will still say that you are delusional if you think we will ever live in a country without some restrictions on firearms for the general public. I would prefer to increment in the right direction, getting rid of the asinine laws like the waiting period, 10 round limits and AWB and setting one national set of laws so that crossing state lines doesn't suddenly turn you from a law abiding person into a felon, instead of digging in my heels and saying all or nothing.

I think that is a lot more free than what we have now, and a lot closer to reality than simply repealing every firearms regulation with the exception of prohibitions on mentally ill people and felons.

odysseus
01-08-2013, 12:52 PM
my apologies for that

Accepted.

I will still say that you are delusional if you think we will ever live in a country without some restrictions on firearms. I would prefer to increment in the right direction, getting rid of the asinine laws like the waiting period, 10 round limits and AWB and setting one national set of laws so that crossing state lines doesn't suddenly turn you from a law abiding person into a felon.

...and then there you go again, even worse now using the word "delusional". So I think you are not forthright in your conversation with me.

I did not say there could or would not be some restrictions on firearms. Again you are vague. And again you are wrong about me.

However it is fantastical that you think your proposition of a national registry and federal testing is a good idea, or that this would overwrite and erase existing regulations on the books. Also it would do nothing against criminals.

So what's the point again?

SilverTauron
01-08-2013, 12:53 PM
Lets skip to the end result, OP. Lets not waste money and time beating around the bush. How about we just blanket ban all firearms , including police officers, and mandate that only the State Governor can authorize ownership of guns at their personal discretion.

That ought to teach them uppity Latin Kings and neer do wells a lesson.

TransplantTexan
01-08-2013, 12:55 PM
A friend and I have discussed the gun control issue ad nauseum. He had proposed a national gun license/ID thing. He is as strong a Second Amendment supporter as any I know. Does his idea have any merit?

Why not establish a national gun owner registry that permits people to receive an identification card to be used to buy and sell guns. Anyone can apply, free of charge, for a gun owner I.D., and the FBI could perform background checks on each applicant. Once cleared, the individual may take their I.D. to any gun shop and purchase a firearm with no waiting period. The only responsibility the dealer would have is to verify the I.D.

Set a standard of what may preclude an individual from owning a gun and provide an appeal process for those denied. Individuals convicted of a felony or hospitalized for mental health reasons may have their I.D. revoked via due process.

This is a simple process that would reduce the illegal sales of firearms, free dealers of the background requirements and waiting periods and free legitimate gun owners of the hassles of buying a firearm.

Maybe we should look at this in reverese - not who should be able to own a firearm but who shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm. Then if your name is not on the list you are eligible to own a firearm.

Oh wait that would be the current background check!

Now just figure out how to make it accessible to potential sellers.

wazdat
01-08-2013, 12:57 PM
Is this ID nationally recognized as my concealed carry permit?

If not, no deal.

robcoe
01-08-2013, 12:59 PM
Accepted.



...and then there you go again, even worse now using the word "delusional". So I think you are not forthright in your conversation with me.

I did not say there could or would not be some restrictions on firearms. Again you are vague. And again you are wrong about me.

However it is fantastical that you think your proposition of a national registry and federal testing is a good idea, or that this would overwrite and erase existing regulations on the books. Also it would do nothing against criminals.

So what's the point again?

Forthright

Definition: Direct and without evasion; straightforward

I don't think I have been evasive at any point, if anything I have been blunt.

Then let's get right to the heart of the matter then, you say you are not arguing for no restrictions except prohibitions on the mentally ill and felons, then list what restrictions you are willing to have.

you keep saying everyone else's ideas on how to improve our situation are terrible, put your own out there.

ElDub1950
01-08-2013, 1:01 PM
My birth certificate ( or for others, citizenship papers ) and a clean record should be the only identification I need.

Use a national registry to identify those justifiably banned from owning a firearm.

fortdick
01-08-2013, 1:08 PM
My birth certificate ( or for others, citizenship papers ) and a clean record should be the only identification I need.

Use a national registry to identify those justifiably banned from owning a firearm.

I agree. Those should be enough.

Try buying a gun with a birth certificate and an unverified clean record.

Absence of something is not proof.

I have heard a lot of *****ing about would should be reality, but not much in the way of what reality is.

ldsnet
01-08-2013, 1:12 PM
That was the whole idea behind the Instant background check. One phone call or computer check and 15 minutes later you walk out with your purchase. No ID cards needed. If they would FUND the program properly to handle the medical prohibited side it would help in correcting the problem.

CA DOJ has gone off the deep end in LOOKING for a reason to prohibit firearms sales.

MudCamper
01-08-2013, 1:16 PM
Every generation is just a little more used to government intrusion into our lives that some day everyone will be OK with Big Brother's cameras in our bathrooms. Sigh.

CHIEFone
01-08-2013, 1:22 PM
Make it also a national CCW and I'm on board.

+1 :D

arslin
01-08-2013, 1:29 PM
First of all any card would not be free. Expect a few hundred dollar fee to get such a card, and then when the time comes to collect all the weapons, the government will know right where to go.

We would be paying for the system to track us.

Capt.Dunsel
01-08-2013, 1:30 PM
[QUOTE=fortdick;10148284]I agree. Those should be enough.

Try buying a gun with a birth certificate and an unverified clean record.

QUOTE]

For $1000 you can get a Birth Certificate, Drivers License, and Social Security Card.

All of which would be "clean" , just ask 95% of my neighborhood.

This is from a friend of the family who" married" an undocumented person
( they have been deported 3 times so far but come back after a month with
new identity):rolleyes:

Seems it ain't that hard.

Joewy
01-08-2013, 1:35 PM
First part in Bold

In California, so is buying and selling a modern firearm without going through an FFL

In DC an NYC so is possessing an unregistered handgun

Both of these are crimes as well

As for the second part in bold

Try reading a little further next time since I specifically went over them.

Simplify firearms regulations to one national standard instead of dozens of state and local ones, many if not most of which are far more restrictive than what I proposed.

Reduce restrictions in places like California, DC, NYC ect

Requirements can be placed on people, unless you are going to claim that the draft we used to have(and still technically have to register for) was unconstitutional, and jury duty is unconstitutional(I would love to see you argue that one in front of a judge)

I'll ask you to answer a question, do you prefer what we have now, or what I proposed? because your fantasy of unlimited firearms rights will never happen.

So, What you are saying is you are all for keeping a small amount of your rights rights and making it a little eaisier for you today by allowing someone to take my rights??

the86d
01-08-2013, 1:40 PM
...
All they really need to do is issue a card for people "kosher" to own a firearm, each with a unique number.
The number could be looked up for currency on the Internet to see if it has been revoked, and if not, then buy and sell freely, paperless, and just verify ID against said card...

This (two sentence PERFECT) solution is WAY too complicated for fool-politicians like Feinstein, Pelosi, Obama, and Boxer... as the only reason to register is for future confiscation, period.
Does this not address every issue?
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/33075486.jpg

odysseus
01-08-2013, 1:41 PM
you keep saying everyone else's ideas on how to improve our situation are terrible, put your own out there.

Actually I am saying they are wrong. Because they are against the essential tenets of our Constitution.

I don't need to put my own ideas out there to be valid to your arguments. I am replying to what you wrote down for us to read. However my own ideas probably don't align with yours, for I do position that we are infringed on and over regulated in this domain as it is.

Further Federal regulation in terms of national permits, required assignments, required national registration to be allowed the practice of an inalienable right as you proposed is certainly not in the direction I see.

Joewy
01-08-2013, 1:43 PM
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/33075486.jpg

Yes it would be something like the handicapped placards. The gov will keep up with a gun ID just like they promissed to keep up with those. 50% of Californials are handicapped if you go by those.
Just send in your renewal check and you are good to go.

the86d
01-08-2013, 1:49 PM
Yes it would be something like the handicapped placards. The gov will keep up with a gun ID just like they promissed to keep up with those. 50% of Californials are handicapped if you go by those.
Just send in your renewal check and you are good to go.

We have to keep up HSC, right? Replace those, as they verify 2A right status, correct?

You are saying that they wouldn't keep prohibited person's card number fast enough if they commit a crime?
I say if could be linked to DOJ, and they DO update that already and how often to they need to update data, as we are able to buy a firearm? However here in Cali we have this 10 cool-off period (not the <1.5 hour wait, like in a free-state), even if we already posses a firearm (or multiples).

robcoe
01-08-2013, 1:50 PM
Actually I am saying they are wrong. Because they are against the essential tenets of our Constitution.

I don't need to put my own ideas out there to be valid to your arguments. I am replying to what you wrote down for us to read. However my own ideas probably don't align with yours, for I do position that we are infringed on and over regulated in this domain as it is.

Further Federal regulation in terms of national permits, required assignments, required national registration to be allowed the practice of an inalienable right as you proposed is certainly not in the direction I see.

And apparently your reading comprehension has failed you again, in what I proposed the only people restricted from owning guns would be felons and the mentally ill, the ones who wouldn't pass the background check, if you didn't pass the training you don't get your ability to own guns revoked, you go back until you pass, to quote my own post

during the training everybody is required to meet the same standards, if a practical portion is included a gun and ammo will be provided, if you don't pass you keep coming back until you pass(again, similar to jury duty, you keep coming back until you're done)

Nowhere did I say if you don't pass you are barred from owning guns, you simply go back until you pass.

And I will say again, it is not training FOR GUN OWNERS, it is FOR EVERYONE, whether they own a gun or not, it creates no registry of owners. The only "registry" is the same one they already have in the form of Social Security numbers.

Now since you are refusing to put out an alternate suggestion(and somehow think that reducing current restrictions is increasing them), answer the first question from the same post you quoted, you claim you are not for completely unrestricted firearms ownership, what restrictions are you willing to accept?

odysseus
01-08-2013, 1:55 PM
I don't accept the premise and subsequent ones you are making. I am under no obligation to do so whereby I must accept those premises, and continue on to what is increasingly becoming a badgering session with you, which is also going nowhere. Agree to disagree.

And apparently your reading comprehension has failed you again, in what I proposed the only people restricted from owning guns would be felons and the mentally ill, the ones who wouldn't pass the background check, if you didn't pass the training you don't get your ability to own guns revoked, you go back until you pass, to quote my own post



Nowhere did I say if you don't pass you are barred from owning guns, you simply go back until you pass.

And I will say again, it is not training FOR GUN OWNERS, it is FOR EVERYONE, whether they own a gun or not, it creates no registry of owners. The only "registry" is the same one they already have in the form of Social Security numbers.

Now since you are refusing to put out an alternate suggestion(and somehow think that reducing current restrictions is increasing them), answer the first question from the same post you quoted, you claim you are not for completely unrestricted firearms ownership, what restrictions are you willing to accept?

Joewy
01-08-2013, 2:00 PM
We have to keep up HSC, right? Replace those, as they verify 2A right status, correct?

You are saying that they wouldn't keep prohibited person's card number fast enough if they commit a crime?
I say if could be linked to DOJ, and they DO update that already and how often to they need to update data, as we are able to buy a firearm? However here in Cali we have this 10 cool-off period (not the <1.5 hour wait, like in a free-state), even if we already posses a firearm (or multiples).

No HSC in My state. People are concidered responsible unless proven otherwise. No CCW either. And we dont want either.

robcoe
01-08-2013, 2:00 PM
I don't accept the premise and subsequent ones you are making. I am under no obligation to do so whereby I must accept those premises, and continue on to what is increasingly becoming a badgering session with you, which is also going nowhere. Agree to disagree.

The "badgering" is because you say everything is wrong and stupid and offer nothing constructive in the form of an idea.

How about this, we agree to disagree on a solution, but I would still like an answer from you on what restrictions you think are reasonable, since you specifically said

I did not say there could or would not be some restrictions on firearms. Again you are vague. And again you are wrong about me.

Because I do not think it even remotely possible that we will ever get to a situation where there will be unrestricted(except to prohibited persons) firearms ownership.

odysseus
01-08-2013, 2:08 PM
Because you are saying there is this point in our society where it is not remotely possible for unrestricted firearms ownership, which by the way is a MODERN late 20th century concept in our country (meaning that largely we the people have had rights to nearly all kinds of possession of arms in our long history), I do not understand under what premise you wish me to tell you what I think is reasonable, other than what I have said already. I do not accept it is reasonable.

How about this, we agree to disagree on a solution, but I would still like an answer from you on what restrictions you think are reasonable. Because I do not think it even remotely possible that we will ever get to a situation where there will be unrestricted(except to prohibited persons) firearms ownership.

odysseus
01-08-2013, 2:20 PM
The "badgering" is because you say everything is wrong and stupid and offer nothing constructive in the form of an idea.

Food for thought for future discussion. You have a bad form in discussion by inserting emotive words to describe things other people have done, which are erroneous and highly subjective to which weight is given to attempt to favor your side. It is self indulgent.

No where did I say everything is wrong or "stupid". Also you fail to grasp at the larger point I am making and continue to drive the idea I must perform for you the submission of further infringement ideas as acceptable to have the discussion.

AnthonyD1978
01-08-2013, 2:22 PM
2 problems with OP.

You said free.....it won't be free. What do you think taxes are for?

The FBI background check that is run when you buy a firearm only takes a few minutes to run. Our 10 day waiting period has nothing to do with waiting for the background check to complete.

I'm not even sure what problem you're trying to address with your proposal.

Joewy
01-08-2013, 2:26 PM
Food for thought for future discussion. You have a bad form in discussion by inserting emotive words to describe things other people have done, which are erroneous and highly subjective to which weight is given to attempt to favor your side. It is self indulgent.

No where did I say everything is wrong or "stupid". Also you fail to grasp at the larger point I am making and continue to drive the idea I must perform for you the submission of further infringement ideas as acceptable to have the discussion.

Some people just dont understand RIGHTS.

Rights are like freedom= freedom.
Same as in Math. 2=2, A=A B=B so on and so forth.
But people who dont understand Rights always try to tell you that 2=3. Then cant justify it without emotion.

mrdd
01-08-2013, 3:50 PM
Are you kidding me? They have a database with every registered gun on it. California certainly does. To think otherwise is naive.

You said "national", I said federal.

The 4473s are kept by the FFL and disposed after 20 years. They are not filed with any government agency.

mrdd
01-08-2013, 3:52 PM
I am just thinking of a way to assure our rights as gun owners. There already is a national registry for all registered guns. They are going to close the Gun Show loophole. Criminals will buy guns illegally, so the law only pertains to those that abide by it.

Since you are so sure of this, please explain how this national registry works.

ssaction
01-08-2013, 8:49 PM
And apparently your reading comprehension has failed you again, in what I proposed the only people restricted from owning guns would be felons and the mentally ill, the ones who wouldn't pass the background check, if you didn't pass the training you don't get your ability to own guns revoked, you go back until you pass, to quote my own post



Who decides who is mentally ill?
What is the criteria?
The Anti's would say all Calgunners are mentally ill....

SilverTauron
01-08-2013, 9:08 PM
You said "national", I said federal.

The 4473s are kept by the FFL and disposed after 20 years. They are not filed with any government agency.

This is false.

While 4473s are not in themselves a registration database, the BATFE's National Tracing Center and Etrace online terminal very much is .You may ask why is it that the BATFE is operating a gun registry in violation of the FOPA. The reason is because they're using the "Gun Registry Loophole", because the National Tracing Center was built before the FOPA was passed in 1986.

The ATF adds information into the Etrace system from a plethora of sources. Among them are import records , so all firearms imported into the US are in the trace system. Weapons taken into custody by law enforcement for ANY reason, including traffic stops and DV seizures are included , as are all firearms bought and sold in anti gun states. Connecticut and New York State officially share state gun owner data is with the ATF, and don't think for a moment California doesn't do the same thing with your DROS info.

It may not be a publicly centralized system akin to the UK or Australia, but rest assured guns are registered. Of course, the anti's idea of an ideal registry and what they have now is somewhat different, which is why they're trying their damndest to close that pesky property right allowing owners to sell guns to citizens without any paperwork.

Bruce
01-08-2013, 9:33 PM
Every generation is just a little more used to government intrusion into our lives that some day everyone will be OK with Big Brother's cameras in our bathrooms. Sigh.

Sounds like the OP is new to the fight. I'd guess he is in his late teens or early 20's. It is naive, even childlike, to believe that a simple national version of Illinois' FOID* will satify the anti gun groups and they'll just go away.



*Firearms Owner ID

mrdd
01-08-2013, 9:49 PM
This is false.

While 4473s are not in themselves a registration database, the BATFE's National Tracing Center and Etrace online terminal very much is .You may ask why is it that the BATFE is operating a gun registry in violation of the FOPA. The reason is because they're using the "Gun Registry Loophole", because the National Tracing Center was built before the FOPA was passed in 1986.

The ATF adds information into the Etrace system from a plethora of sources. Among them are import records , so all firearms imported into the US are in the trace system. Weapons taken into custody by law enforcement for ANY reason, including traffic stops and DV seizures are included , as are all firearms bought and sold in anti gun states. Connecticut and New York State officially share state gun owner data is with the ATF, and don't think for a moment California doesn't do the same thing with your DROS info.

It may not be a publicly centralized system akin to the UK or Australia, but rest assured guns are registered. Of course, the anti's idea of an ideal registry and what they have now is somewhat different, which is why they're trying their damndest to close that pesky property right allowing owners to sell guns to citizens without any paperwork.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree that there is some shady stuff going on. The national tracing center should be taken apart and the ATF (at least the 'F' part) should be cut back to the following functions:

1) Administration of federal firearm licenses
2) Implementation of regulations necessary to enforce the rest of the GCA and the NFA
3) Auditing of licensees transactions and inventory

That's it. It is just a bunch of pencil pushing, the law enforcement functions should be given to the FBI.

32blownhemi
01-08-2013, 9:49 PM
Doesn't California keep records of the handguns we buy in our state? So aren't they basically registered unlike other states? Thanks, Bill

mrdd
01-08-2013, 9:53 PM
Doesn't California keep records of the handguns we buy in our state? So aren't they basically registered unlike other states? Thanks, Bill

The state keeps a database of transfers of all concealable firearms. In less than a year it will begin including transfers of all firearms.

Oshiat
01-08-2013, 9:55 PM
Maybe we should look at this in reverese - not who should be able to own a firearm but who shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm. Then if your name is not on the list you are eligible to own a firearm.

Oh wait that would be the current background check!

Now just figure out how to make it accessible to potential sellers.

This part is simple. Reissue California Drivers Licenses and ID cards. If you are prohibited, California is in red letters. If you are not it is green. If you have no DL or ID, you are considered prohibited until you acquire one.

IVC
01-08-2013, 10:19 PM
Are you kidding me? They have a database with every registered gun on it. California certainly does. To think otherwise is naive.

No, it's not naive.

The so called "gun show loophole" which is just a derogatory phrase for private party sales ensures that government does NOT know who owns what. This is also why it's one of the highest priorities for the anti gunners. They are trying to sell it as a background check provision, while they are salivating at a possibility to create a federal level registry.

Tarn_Helm
01-08-2013, 10:20 PM
A friend and I have discussed the gun control issue ad nauseum. He had proposed a national gun license/ID thing. He is as strong a Second Amendment supporter as any I know. Does his idea have any merit?


(The Latin phrase is spelled ad nauseam.)

No.
Why?
Because on the day that guns are outlawed, we outlaws don't want the government knowing who owns what.

Remember: It is the law-abiding people who will be the only ones left to care about reinstituting the Constitution in the event of a breakdown of the rule in which the government openly rejects the Constitution, imposes martial law, and then takes steps to solidify its power by disarming the people of the United States of America.

In such a scenario, two group will have guns: criminals and government thugs.

Neither group will share your enthusiasm for reinstituting the Constitution in the event of a breakdown of the rule in which the government openly rejects the Constitution.

To whom would you turn for a firearm?

A criminal?

(You couldn't turn to the government, obviously.)

Good luck with the criminal.

He'll just use the gun to take whatever you had intended to pay him with.

Now you've lost your "currency," your dream of regaining a gun, and possibly your life.

How's that National Gun Registry looking now?
:facepalm:

Here is what you are really failing to take seriously: The Founding Fathers hardwired into the U.S. Consitution the means to fight the government by using your privately owned firearms.

Do you honestly imagine that you understand life, history, the world, and human nature better than they did?

The Second Amendment does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms registered in a national database shall not be infringed."

It does not say that for a reason.

As hard as that reason is for some people to swallow, they have to swallow it.

We have guns to overthrow the government in the event of a breakdown of the rule in which the government openly rejects the Constitution, imposes martial law, and then takes steps to solidify its power by disarming the people of the United States of America.

That was the worst case scenario discussed at length in Federalist 46.

Read it.

Understand it.

Live it.
:cool:

We're not at that stage yet.

We will win the upcoming battles through dialogue, legal and political action, and by spreading the word through little internet posts like this.

But we always have to remain prepared for the worst case scenario hypothesized in Federalist 46.

Don't take my word for it.

Observe the informed reasoning (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/federalist_no_4.php) of a constitutional law scholar who has been battling for the Second Amendment since at least 1982 (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senhardy.html), when his work was published in this: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES SENATE, NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, Second Session February 1982 (http://www.billstclair.com/rkba1982.htm).
:cool:

falawful
01-09-2013, 12:26 AM
Federal registry of gun owners?

It's ILLEGAL. Period.

18 U.S.C. 926 (2) (a)

"No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation."

These ****ers that are saying that a "national database to track the movement and sale of weapons" are directly advocating violating existing federal law. That includes your posit of a 'national firearms owner ID'.

Would a 'national firearms owner ID' have prevented the Sandy Hook mass shooting?

NO!

I do not need a license/permit to be a journalist, go to church, etc.

If you want an 'ID' type solution, add a comment line to drivers' licenses 'F' for felon and 'N' for nutcase. Leave the rest of us alone.

I see no practical purpose to being counted by Caesar to own guns, nor is it congruent with the constitution of our country.

So... no, the idea of a national gun owner ID does not have merit. Further, it is corrosive to the ideals that our country was founded upon.

badicedog
01-09-2013, 2:12 AM
A National ID sounds bad, gun or otherwise. We have too much .gov intrusion into our lives as is...

SilverTauron
01-09-2013, 4:33 AM
A National ID sounds bad, gun or otherwise. We have too much .gov intrusion into our lives as is...

Almost half this forum disagrees with you.

SPROCKET
01-09-2013, 4:44 AM
Cue the zealots and amateur constitutional scholars in 3...2... :rolleyes:

Frankly there is merit in a system that would prevent prohibited persons from purchasing firearms through legitimate channels. Unfortunately, we all know any form of registration or tracking is the first step to confiscation. This is a deal killer for me.

Tarn_Helm
01-09-2013, 5:14 AM
This member wrote:

A National ID sounds bad, gun or otherwise. We have too much .gov intrusion into our lives as is...
You need to explain why this is the case, or else someone will make the rejoinder that . . .

Almost half this forum disagrees with you.

:facepalm:

Cue the zealots and amateur constitutional scholars in 3...2... :rolleyes:

Frankly there is merit in a system that would prevent prohibited persons from purchasing firearms through legitimate channels. Unfortunately, we all know any form of registration or tracking is the first step to confiscation. This is a deal killer for me.

Thanks for the cue, SPROCKET. :D

Let's cut to the chase.

Just as it is axiomatically true that you can, after all else fails, only defeat force with force, so also is it axiomatically true that truth is not determined solely by some sort of "majority vote."

If 51% of the "this forum" votes that 7+5=13, that does not make the majority right. Just foolish.

A Majoritarian Theory of Truth is a recipe for disaster, which is precisely why we are not a "democracy," (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE) why the word "democracy" never appears in ANY of the documents written by the Founding Fathers except when they excoriate the idea, and why we should not aspire to implement "democracy" as a substitute for the Constitution and the rights recognized by it.
DioQooFIcgE

Still not convinced, folks?

Read this: THE FIREARMS OWNERS' PROTECTION ACT: A HISTORICAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE (http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardfopa.html), from the fellow who made this (http://www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com/).

chris
01-09-2013, 5:19 AM
Ask anyone that survived the holocaust and see what they think about it.

Lone_Gunman
01-09-2013, 8:57 AM
The Federal :censored:ing Government has no business licensing even "potential" gun owners. How could anyone think it was a good idea to freely give them your information, and that you wanted to buy a gun bad enough to apply for and receive an ID card.

OP, how can you not see that this is a horrible idea?

Lone_Gunman
01-09-2013, 8:59 AM
We have to keep up HSC, right? Replace those, as they verify 2A right status, correct?

You are saying that they wouldn't keep prohibited person's card number fast enough if they commit a crime?
I say if could be linked to DOJ, and they DO update that already and how often to they need to update data, as we are able to buy a firearm? However here in Cali we have this 10 cool-off period (not the <1.5 hour wait, like in a free-state), even if we already posses a firearm (or multiples).

FWIW you don't have to keep up a HSC, you need one to purchase a handgun, not own one.

LibertyDeath
01-09-2013, 9:18 AM
we already have a national ID. Its called a drivers license or some other proof of who you are. No other bloated system is needed.

You mean our SSN. A license is a state level of ID that is merely accepted nationwide.

fortdick
01-09-2013, 9:34 AM
You said "national", I said federal.

The 4473s are kept by the FFL and disposed after 20 years. They are not filed with any government agency.

I gotta believe that there is a computer in the DOJ that has every registered gun in America recorded in it, along with the owner's name and address. If you don't think that is true, then I commend your feelings of trust and security. I personally don't trust the goverment at all.

fortdick
01-09-2013, 9:39 AM
No, it's not naive.

The so called "gun show loophole" which is just a derogatory phrase for private party sales ensures that government does NOT know who owns what. This is also why it's one of the highest priorities for the anti gunners. They are trying to sell it as a background check provision, while they are salivating at a possibility to create a federal level registry.

Gun show sales are a small percentage of all gun sales. The vast majority are registered and recorded by the DOJ. They already have a federal level registry whether you believe it or not.

They have computers tracking every discussion on boards like this looking for red flags, words that scare them. Do you suppose that Eric Holder would scruple not to have a databse of all known gun owners?

fortdick
01-09-2013, 9:40 AM
(The Latin phrase is spelled ad nauseam.)



Great, the grammar nazi's appear.

Lone_Gunman
01-09-2013, 9:44 AM
...

We have guns to overthrow the government in the event of a breakdown of the rule in which the government openly rejects the Constitution, imposes martial law, and then takes steps to solidify its power by disarming the people of the United States of America.

That was the worst case scenario discussed at length in Federalist 46.

Read it.

Understand it.

Live it.
:cool:

We're not at that stage yet.

We will win the upcoming battles through dialogue, legal and political action, and by spreading the word through little internet posts like this.

But we always have to remain prepared for the worst case scenario hypothesized in Federalist 46.

Don't take my word for it.



Because so many won't take the time or make the effort, and because we are forgetting our history...

Excerpted from The Federalist #46 January 29, 1788


The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

Madison had a lot of faith in the American people that we would never allow our selves to get to the point where this was even a question, as evidenced by this:

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

Unfortunately it seems that he over estimated the fortitude of my countrymen.

fonso
01-09-2013, 9:54 AM
I had a similar idea, but different in a few key ways

In mine

Require firearms training for everybody, not just gun owners, not just people looking to own guns, everyone, only exemption is for people who for health reasons physically cannot complete the course. Make it similar to jury duty, because the right to a trial of your peers is guaranteed in the constitution everybody is required to serve on a jury when called, whether they ever have been on trial or ever expect to be on trial or not. A similar requirement to make the 2nd amendment work could be justified.

When the training starts they run an instant background check, during the training everybody is required to meet the same standards, if a practical portion is included a gun and ammo will be provided, if you don't pass you keep coming back until you pass(again, similar to jury duty, you keep coming back until you're done). At the conclusion of training you receive a national firearms card which certifies you can purchase and possess a gun, and also serves as a national voter ID card. From then until your next session you can buy firearms with no waiting period and nothing else required except showing the seller your card.

The reason I suggest making it a universal requirement instead of what most people suggest which is making it targeted at just gun owners and people looking to become gun owners is simple, if the targeted kind of training went through you would have a situation like DC, where while it is POSSIBLE to get a gun, the fees and requirements are so difficult and convoluted that it is for all practical purposes a ban. Basically people like Frankenfeinstein would make the requirements so tough for training that special forces soldiers wouldn't be able to pass. Also, this way they wouldn't have a list that would let them say "these people own guns, search their houses".

I am sure there are problems with this idea, but I see it as better than targeted training, ID cards and tests for JUST gun owners, and bans.

As an auxiliary benefit, a lot of people who would have been anti-gun simply because they had never had experience with them and have been told they are bad would have first hand experience, which I have found converts about 30-40% of them.

While I fully appreciate the time and effort you have expended on your proposal, I find it REPUGNANT that even one condition is considered to be placed upon the exercise of a constitutionally guaranteed and protected inalienable civil right!

If we (generically) may agree upon even one such condition, where does it all end? :confused:

Wherryj
01-09-2013, 10:24 AM
we already have a national ID. Its called a drivers license or some other proof of who you are. No other bloated system is needed.

But, but...you are arguing against the first and only government ID/program/idea that would ever work as intended? This idea is genius and could be the first ever government program that not only worked perfectly, but also was free of corruption and misuse by the government. After all, having all of that data so readily available could just be too tempting for any government.

Everyone knows how well Social Security Numbers work as identifiers and how NO ONE ever manages to use on fraudulently or for unauthorized reasons.

fonso
01-09-2013, 10:31 AM
Almost half this forum disagrees with you.

Please count me in as a part of the forum that agrees with him!!!

fortdick
01-09-2013, 10:45 AM
Originally, I asked for reasons why this idea would or would not work. I understand, and agree, with the beliefs that there should be no restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. I am a conservatie libertarian who believes we should have just enough government to prevent anarchy.

That being said, reality is, they have infringed on our liberty to keep and bear arms. It is unequivocal that politicians want to take away guns for one reason; to supress our ability to threaten their power. Mao said all power grows from the barrel of a gun. All these "progressive" politicians are just trying to diminsh the power of the common man.

We are not going to end registration, restrictions, or outright bans. What do we accept as a reasonable compromise between the anti-gun groups and those of us that wish to protect our freedom? Short of a new revolution, we are not going to have it our way completely. Stomping our feet and saying "NO" to every idea is not going to work. reality is, unless we find some acceptable solution, the gun grabbers will control the argument.

My friend and I talked about this idea, and the more I thought about it, the more I began to see the potential benefits for those of us that believe in guns rights. If I could obtain a card that identified me as a law abiding citizen, and that card allowed me to purchase firearms without having to wait for the bureaucracy to approve me exercising my Constitutional right, I would get one. We have to register to vote.

The truth is, we are at the point where they are going to try and gut the 2A. There is a significant portion of the population that is opposed to gun ownership to one degree or another. Most of these folks live in the area east of the Ohio and north of the Susquehanna. They seem to think that they have the right to speak for America. Short of secession, we have to accept that their population will influence our laws. The fact that our national media is based in this region and influenced by the opinions of this region is our biggest problem. New York City is not all there is to America, but you would have a hard time convincing NBC, CBS or CNN of that fact.

We have to propose laws that address the concerns of the Northeast while at the same time guarantee our freedoms. If not this idea, what idea do y'all propose?

trevorlc
01-09-2013, 10:46 AM
What I suggested is a better solution that what we have now, a massive patchwork of confusing laws that are, in general far more restrictive than what I proposed.



I do love the idea of simple nation wide gun law, especially if it included CCW!

Though two problems:

1. It seems likely to me that anything approved at that level would end up restricting people in some states that are rather free at the moment. While we in California might see some relief of restrictions, I think most of the country would see an increase and not be happy about it. This would create states rights issue, and states adding a bit on or taking a bit off because they don't agree which could put us back where we are today with a web of federal & state laws to navigate.

2. Something this convenient for us also makes it convenient for the gun grabbers. Right now with many firearms laws being at state level its very compartmentalized and makes it more difficult for them to attack.

I do think its necessary to create more reciprocity for CCW though and that might take a federal involvement to happen. Could people imagine what a pain in the *** travel would be if driving didn't have national reciprocity??

Wrangler John
01-09-2013, 11:15 AM
I had a similar idea, but different in a few key ways

In mine

Require firearms training for everybody, not just gun owners, not just people looking to own guns, everyone, only exemption is for people who for health reasons physically cannot complete the course. Make it similar to jury duty, because the right to a trial of your peers is guaranteed in the constitution everybody is required to serve on a jury when called, whether they ever have been on trial or ever expect to be on trial or not. A similar requirement to make the 2nd amendment work could be justified.

When the training starts they run an instant background check, during the training everybody is required to meet the same standards, if a practical portion is included a gun and ammo will be provided, if you don't pass you keep coming back until you pass(again, similar to jury duty, you keep coming back until you're done). At the conclusion of training you receive a national firearms card which certifies you can purchase and possess a gun, and also serves as a national voter ID card. From then until your next session you can buy firearms with no waiting period and nothing else required except showing the seller your card.

The reason I suggest making it a universal requirement instead of what most people suggest which is making it targeted at just gun owners and people looking to become gun owners is simple, if the targeted kind of training went through you would have a situation like DC, where while it is POSSIBLE to get a gun, the fees and requirements are so difficult and convoluted that it is for all practical purposes a ban. Basically people like Frankenfeinstein would make the requirements so tough for training that special forces soldiers wouldn't be able to pass. Also, this way they wouldn't have a list that would let them say "these people own guns, search their houses".

I am sure there are problems with this idea, but I see it as better than targeted training, ID cards and tests for JUST gun owners, and bans.

As an auxiliary benefit, a lot of people who would have been anti-gun simply because they had never had experience with them and have been told they are bad would have first hand experience, which I have found converts about 30-40% of them.

You don't have to be trained or have an ID card to vote. In some localities it seems that you don't have to live there, or even be alive, or maybe even existed at all.

You don't need training and an ID card to write an editorial or a book, or have a license to own a computer and word processor, or practice your religion, or speak out in public. So why a license to exercise a fundamental right under the Constitution?

Do not try to placate the left with platitudes and reasonable sounding ideas. They are not amenable to logic or reason, they are after your rights that prevent them from dictating your life to you. The answer must always be no, and then listen as they rephrase the question in every way imaginable to attempt to weaken your logic and reasonableness. Still the answer must be no, no argument, no justification, no is the answer. We as a nation have arrived at the crossroad, the government is corrupt, the leadership traitorous to the founding principles, and determined to destroy the basis of liberty and economic prosperity of Americans. The answer must always be no.

Joewy
01-09-2013, 11:36 AM
Yep, NO pure and simple.