National Gun ID

[robcoe]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

free ? how can the card be free? also you would need a backgorund check annually ?

[Saym14]

free ? how can the card be free? also you would need a backgorund check annually ?

[odysseus]

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?

[fortdick]

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.