|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 8, 2016 17:46:25 GMT
My thinking on a licence system and what it would cover/allow;
Provisional; Allows ownership of category 1 firearms with the intention of training with firearms under the supervision of a full licence holder. Such weapons must be used in locations deemed suitable by local or State authorities, and be placed in the care of a fully licenced individual at all other times. (Meaning that if you live with someone who holds a full licence you can keep the gun at home and they become responsible for its safekeeping and storage.) This may also include allowing hunting provided it is done under supervision of a full licence holder.
Level 1; Allows ownership of handguns up to 9mm calibre, not including magnum type guns. May also include bolt action hunting rifles or shotguns at the discretion of the local or State authorities. Would also include historical weapons such as muskets.
Level 2; Allows ownership of all handguns, bolt action hunting rifles and shotguns that are not otherwise banned either at the State or Federal level.
Level 3; Covers all firearms that are not fully automatic or otherwise banned.
Level 4; Covers fully automatic and large calibre rifles deemed to be unsuitable for home defence or hunting (That is something like the .50 cal rifle) This would be intended for serious collectors and require evidence that the weapons would be stored in a secure place.
Level 5; Covers all types of firearm. This would be for those who's jobs or livelihood requires ownership of such weapons, for example armourers working in film or tv. As well as evidence the weapons will be secured in a safe place evidence for the need for such weapons would be required.
Licences would work similar to driving licences in that having a gun for which you do not hold a licence will result in a fine and possibly confiscation and destruction of the weapon. Committing crimes or dangerous behavior may result in losing your licence.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 8, 2016 18:09:09 GMT
My thinking on a licence system and what it would cover/allow; Provisional; Allows ownership of category 1 firearms with the intention of training with firearms under the supervision of a full licence holder. Such weapons must be used in locations deemed suitable by local or State authorities, and be placed in the care of a fully licenced individual at all other times. (Meaning that if you live with someone who holds a full licence you can keep the gun at home and they become responsible for its safekeeping and storage.) This may also include allowing hunting provided it is done under supervision of a full licence holder. Level 1; Allows ownership of handguns up to 9mm calibre, not including magnum type guns. May also include bolt action hunting rifles or shotguns at the discretion of the local or State authorities. Would also include historical weapons such as muskets. Level 2; Allows ownership of all handguns, bolt action hunting rifles and shotguns that are not otherwise banned either at the State or Federal level. Level 3; Covers all firearms that are not fully automatic or otherwise banned. Level 4; Covers fully automatic and large calibre rifles deemed to be unsuitable for home defence or hunting (That is something like the .50 cal rifle) This would be intended for serious collectors and require evidence that the weapons would be stored in a secure place. Level 5; Covers all types of firearm. This would be for those who's jobs or livelihood requires ownership of such weapons, for example armourers working in film or tv. As well as evidence the weapons will be secured in a safe place evidence for the need for such weapons would be required. Licences would work similar to driving licences in that having a gun for which you do not hold a licence will result in a fine and possibly confiscation and destruction of the weapon. Committing crimes or dangerous behavior may result in losing your licence. And which level does anything whatsoever to cut down gun violence in Chicago? Maybe your last statement, (slightly modified) Committing crimes or dangerous behavior may WILL result in losing your licence FREEDOM for a long, long time.
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Jan 8, 2016 20:03:17 GMT
Yes Chicago is a glowing example of common sense gun control.
Myth busted
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 8, 2016 20:32:31 GMT
Yes Chicago is a glowing example of common sense gun control. Myth busted I know the problem in Chicago. I live in Chicago. Well, at least close enough that I can see Sears Tower from my roof. And the solution to the shootings and killings in Chicago isn't gun control. Chicago, and the entire state of Illinois, has the strongest gun control laws in the nation. It's done nothing to reduce gun violence in the city. That's because we don't need more gun control, we need crime control. The black on black murder rate in Chicago is well over 95%. Yet a policeman isn't allowed to stop and frisk a suspect without being accused of targeting a minority. They (the police) have to wait until that suspect actually commits a crime. Even though the murder rate of blacks by blacks is so high, we are constantly told that the incarceration rate among blacks is way out of proportion. It's NOT the incarceration rate, it's the violent crime rate that is out of proportion. Every time some innocent kid gets caught in the crossfire, the mayor comes out beating his chest for more gun control. So don't even think about telling me gun control is the answer. It's been proven beyond any rational thought, it is not. Yes, the myth is BUSTED. Problem is, nobody watched that episode.
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Jan 8, 2016 21:10:24 GMT
Yes Chicago is a glowing example of common sense gun control. Myth busted I know the problem in Chicago. I live in Chicago. Well, at least close enough that I can see Sears Tower from my roof. And the solution to the shootings and killings in Chicago isn't gun control. Chicago, and the entire state of Illinois, has the strongest gun control laws in the nation. It's done nothing to reduce gun violence in the city. That's because we don't need more gun control, we need crime control. The black on black murder rate in Chicago is well over 95%. Yet a policeman isn't allowed to stop and frisk a suspect without being accused of targeting a minority. They (the police) have to wait until that suspect actually commits a crime. Even though the murder rate of blacks by blacks is so high, we are constantly told that the incarceration rate among blacks is way out of proportion. It's NOT the incarceration rate, it's the violent crime rate that is out of proportion. Every time some innocent kid gets caught in the crossfire, the mayor comes out beating his chest for more gun control. So don't even think about telling me gun control is the answer. It's been proven beyond any rational thought, it is not. Yes, the myth is BUSTED. Problem is, nobody watched that episode. I know murder and assault/robbery should be illegal..... I did my trauma rotation in Baltimore at the Shock/Trauma Center. So many lives lost. The most common cause of death for a young black man was another young black man. There is a problem bigger than guns or race we need to teach generations to respect life. That may not be able to happen soon.
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Jan 8, 2016 21:18:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 9, 2016 1:24:01 GMT
My thinking on a licence system and what it would cover/allow; Provisional; Allows ownership of category 1 firearms with the intention of training with firearms under the supervision of a full licence holder. Such weapons must be used in locations deemed suitable by local or State authorities, and be placed in the care of a fully licenced individual at all other times. (Meaning that if you live with someone who holds a full licence you can keep the gun at home and they become responsible for its safekeeping and storage.) This may also include allowing hunting provided it is done under supervision of a full licence holder. Level 1; Allows ownership of handguns up to 9mm calibre, not including magnum type guns. May also include bolt action hunting rifles or shotguns at the discretion of the local or State authorities. Would also include historical weapons such as muskets. Level 2; Allows ownership of all handguns, bolt action hunting rifles and shotguns that are not otherwise banned either at the State or Federal level. Level 3; Covers all firearms that are not fully automatic or otherwise banned. Level 4; Covers fully automatic and large calibre rifles deemed to be unsuitable for home defence or hunting (That is something like the .50 cal rifle) This would be intended for serious collectors and require evidence that the weapons would be stored in a secure place. Level 5; Covers all types of firearm. This would be for those who's jobs or livelihood requires ownership of such weapons, for example armourers working in film or tv. As well as evidence the weapons will be secured in a safe place evidence for the need for such weapons would be required. Licences would work similar to driving licences in that having a gun for which you do not hold a licence will result in a fine and possibly confiscation and destruction of the weapon. Committing crimes or dangerous behavior may result in losing your licence. a more likely structure would be: Class a: allows historical or replica black powder arms. Class 1: allows long guns in hunting configurations. (I.E, full stock and limited magazine capacity) Class 2: allows handguns not already covered under class a Class 3: allows semiautomatic arms in military configurations Class 4: allows fully automatic arms note there is no provisional license - people without a license may not own firearms but may shoot under supervision of a licensed owner.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 9, 2016 1:28:38 GMT
Yes Chicago is a glowing example of common sense gun control. Myth busted I know the problem in Chicago. I live in Chicago. Well, at least close enough that I can see Sears Tower from my roof. And the solution to the shootings and killings in Chicago isn't gun control. Chicago, and the entire state of Illinois, has the strongest gun control laws in the nation. It's done nothing to reduce gun violence in the city. That's because we don't need more gun control, we need crime control. The black on black murder rate in Chicago is well over 95%. Yet a policeman isn't allowed to stop and frisk a suspect without being accused of targeting a minority. They (the police) have to wait until that suspect actually commits a crime. Even though the murder rate of blacks by blacks is so high, we are constantly told that the incarceration rate among blacks is way out of proportion. It's NOT the incarceration rate, it's the violent crime rate that is out of proportion. Every time some innocent kid gets caught in the crossfire, the mayor comes out beating his chest for more gun control. So don't even think about telling me gun control is the answer. It's been proven beyond any rational thought, it is not. Yes, the myth is BUSTED. Problem is, nobody watched that episode. if they were controlling their guns properly, there wouldn't be anyone hit by stray bullets. remember, though, under the licensing system, none of the criminals would have licenses - so any caught with guns could have the guns summarily confiscated and the criminal jailed immediately.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 9, 2016 1:33:33 GMT
rather simplistic article. somehow I suspect the receiver they are using is milled such that a full auto trigger group may be installed without doing any additional milling on the receiver. in comparison, on my L1A1, the full auto trigger group from a FN-FAL will not fit without milling out the part of the receiver the autofire sear fits into. the recall requirement will be to exchange the lower receiver so that the full auto trigger group will not fit.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 9, 2016 1:56:34 GMT
remember, though, under the licensing system, none of the criminals would have licenses - so any caught with guns could have the guns summarily confiscated and the criminal jailed immediately. Under the current system, if they are caught with guns, they can be confiscated and jailed. So why aren't we doing it? We don't need licenses for them not to have. This is what's so crazy about all this gun control debate. We don't need new complicated laws and licensing systems. It would do absolutely no good if we did. At least not withing the next 50 years. All we need to do is vigorously enforce the laws we have. But no, it's much simpler to debate legal gun ownership till the cows come home. In the mean time, hundreds of people are dying.
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Jan 9, 2016 2:05:48 GMT
remember, though, under the licensing system, none of the criminals would have licenses - so any caught with guns could have the guns summarily confiscated and the criminal jailed immediately. Under the current system, if they are caught with guns, they can be confiscated and jailed. So why aren't we doing it? We don't need licenses for them not to have. This is what's so crazy about all this gun control debate. We don't need new complicated laws and licensing systems. It would do absolutely no good if we did. At least not withing the next 50 years. All we need to do is vigorously enforce the laws we have. But no, it's much simpler to debate legal gun ownership till the cows come home. In the mean time, hundreds of people are dying. Actually in my how stupid part deux post , a cast member of Doomsday Preppers was seen on national tv shooting a firearm. He was a convicted felon and the Feds nailed him. It does sometimes work. He called himself a alpha predator, he was actually an alpha pedophile. Stupid should hurt.
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Jan 9, 2016 2:08:09 GMT
rather simplistic article. somehow I suspect the receiver they are using is milled such that a full auto trigger group may be installed without doing any additional milling on the receiver. in comparison, on my L1A1, the full auto trigger group from a FN-FAL will not fit without milling out the part of the receiver the autofire sear fits into. the recall requirement will be to exchange the lower receiver so that the full auto trigger group will not fit. Yes and today we have a whole group of prohibited persons. From felons to straw buyers many never caught despite the laws. In this case it seems the "third hole" were the auto sear would go was the issue. Even though the auto sears are not readily available in the US and if they were all you would need is a drill. Heck you can't buy an auto sear in the us without showing your tax stamp. They can even get you for "intent to build" if you have an full auto bolt carrier group and no stamp. Once a machine gun always a machine gun in the atf mind. Even a piece of string can be a machine gun. For the politicians,it is not about guns It is about control
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 9, 2016 14:15:58 GMT
The licence system is based on two basic principles;
1: The biggest danger from firearms statewide comes not from criminals, but from people who either/or lack the skills to safely hold guns or who own guns that are more powerful than they can handle. The gun control lobby refuses to accept that no law is going to stop those who want to have a firearm for criminal purposes. So instead of wasting time and effort trying to legislate against this to the point that it infringes on the rights of responsible owners, it is better to ensure and deal with irresponsible owners though required education and qualifications. In the long run this will save more lives.
2: Licences would aid law enforcement, especially if you were required to have your licence with you along with a gun. If someone can't provide a valid licence on request then any guns present would be confiscated and held by law enforcement for a limited period until or unless a valid licence can be shown. If no licence is shown within that date the weapons are destroyed and charges filed.
The licence levels I wrote above were a rough example. The provisional level licence was intended with an eye towards kids (the minimum age for such a licence being left up to the State). The licence would allow a parent to buy them a gun that is theirs in name, which seems to be something of a right of passage in some areas, while also making it clear that ultimately responsibility for that firearm rests with the parent who bought it. Some parents may need to have this spelled out to them in writing or even by losing their own licence.
Likewise having the basic full licence cover only the lower powered handguns is to try and stop people from going out and getting the biggest baddest gun they can afford. You don't really want someone with little or no experience trying to use a .44 revolver for home defence, chances are they'd be more dangerous to themselves than a potential home invader.
The tests themselves would be fairly simple consisting of two parts. One would be a simple written test to show an understanding as to safe storage and handling of the respective guns at home - the added advantage here is that owners would have no excuse for storing guns in a dangerous place or condition. The second part would require live firing at a test site under supervision. The second test isn't about showing you are an expert marksman, rather that you can hold and shoot a gun in a way that isn't dangerous to yourself or others, such as holding the gun sideways or having your hand cover part of the weapon that is likely to injure the shooter. Higher level licences would require more difficult testing, with the highest level ones requiring evidence that the guns would/will be stored in a secured place and maybe a very good reason for needing such a licence.
Those who are already responsible owners should find these tests easy to pass. Those who are not are either going to have to learn, or not be able to legally own a gun.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 9, 2016 14:36:21 GMT
The licence system is based on two basic principles; 1: The biggest danger from firearms statewide comes not from criminals, but from people who either/or lack the skills to safely hold guns or who own guns that are more powerful than they can handle. The gun control lobby refuses to accept that no law is going to stop those who want to have a firearm for criminal purposes. So instead of wasting time and effort trying to legislate against this to the point that it infringes on the rights of responsible owners, it is better to ensure and deal with irresponsible owners though required education and qualifications. In the long run this will save more lives. 2: Licences would aid law enforcement, especially if you were required to have your licence with you along with a gun. If someone can't provide a valid licence on request then any guns present would be confiscated and held by law enforcement for a limited period until or unless a valid licence can be shown. If no licence is shown within that date the weapons are destroyed and charges filed. The licence levels I wrote above were a rough example. The provisional level licence was intended with an eye towards kids (the minimum age for such a licence being left up to the State). The licence would allow a parent to buy them a gun that is theirs in name, which seems to be something of a right of passage in some areas, while also making it clear that ultimately responsibility for that firearm rests with the parent who bought it. Some parents may need to have this spelled out to them in writing or even by losing their own licence. Likewise having the basic full licence cover only the lower powered handguns is to try and stop people from going out and getting the biggest baddest gun they can afford. You don't really want someone with little or no experience trying to use a .44 revolver for home defence, chances are they'd be more dangerous to themselves than a potential home invader. The tests themselves would be fairly simple consisting of two parts. One would be a simple written test to show an understanding as to safe storage and handling of the respective guns at home - the added advantage here is that owners would have no excuse for storing guns in a dangerous place or condition. The second part would require live firing at a test site under supervision. The second test isn't about showing you are an expert marksman, rather that you can hold and shoot a gun in a way that isn't dangerous to yourself or others, such as holding the gun sideways or having your hand cover part of the weapon that is likely to injure the shooter. Higher level licences would require more difficult testing, with the highest level ones requiring evidence that the guns would/will be stored in a secured place and maybe a very good reason for needing such a licence. Those who are already responsible owners should find these tests easy to pass. Those who are not are either going to have to learn, or not be able to legally own a gun. I favor only making sure they aren't a danger to others. why tamper too much with natural selection? more seriously. in Oregon you have to have a license to operate a car, a powerboat, and a bar. requiring a license to operate a gun is not a big deal. as for provisional license and juvenile ownership - in Oregon you have to be a minimum of 18 to own a long gun, and 21 to own a pistol. there are already a LOT of parents here who have gotten guns for their underage kids - the parent legally owns the gun until the kid is old enough to legally own it. doing away with the provisional license system and using the long gun - pistol - military arm is based on our current structure. the "a" subdivision in my schedule may be a specialty license for collectors, or it may be a required endorsement for people to own black powder weapons. (the idea being they do have some specialized requirements for safety) I would also say (as I have said before) that the whole licensing system should be administrated by an independent agency (I.E. not under the authority of the BATF (bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms))
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 9, 2016 14:40:36 GMT
rather simplistic article. somehow I suspect the receiver they are using is milled such that a full auto trigger group may be installed without doing any additional milling on the receiver. in comparison, on my L1A1, the full auto trigger group from a FN-FAL will not fit without milling out the part of the receiver the autofire sear fits into. the recall requirement will be to exchange the lower receiver so that the full auto trigger group will not fit. Yes and today we have a whole group of prohibited persons. From felons to straw buyers many never caught despite the laws. In this case it seems the "third hole" we're the auto sear would go was the issue. Even though the auto sears are not readily available in the US and if they were all you would need is a drill. Heck you can't buy an auto sear in the us without showing your tax stamp. They can even get you for "intent to build" if you have an full auto bolt carrier group and no stamp. Once a machine gun always a machine gun in the atf mind. Even a piece of string can be a machine gun. For the politicians,it is not about guns It is about control and if you have the receiver drilled to accept the auto sear, they can also get you for "intent to build" - which is why it was necessary to have the receivers that could accept the auto sear recalled.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 9, 2016 16:20:47 GMT
The licence system is based on two basic principles; 1: The biggest danger from firearms statewide comes not from criminals, but from people who either/or lack the skills to safely hold guns or who own guns that are more powerful than they can handle. The gun control lobby refuses to accept that no law is going to stop those who want to have a firearm for criminal purposes. So instead of wasting time and effort trying to legislate against this to the point that it infringes on the rights of responsible owners, it is better to ensure and deal with irresponsible owners though required education and qualifications. In the long run this will save more lives. 2: Licences would aid law enforcement, especially if you were required to have your licence with you along with a gun. If someone can't provide a valid licence on request then any guns present would be confiscated and held by law enforcement for a limited period until or unless a valid licence can be shown. If no licence is shown within that date the weapons are destroyed and charges filed. The licence levels I wrote above were a rough example. The provisional level licence was intended with an eye towards kids (the minimum age for such a licence being left up to the State). The licence would allow a parent to buy them a gun that is theirs in name, which seems to be something of a right of passage in some areas, while also making it clear that ultimately responsibility for that firearm rests with the parent who bought it. Some parents may need to have this spelled out to them in writing or even by losing their own licence. Likewise having the basic full licence cover only the lower powered handguns is to try and stop people from going out and getting the biggest baddest gun they can afford. You don't really want someone with little or no experience trying to use a .44 revolver for home defence, chances are they'd be more dangerous to themselves than a potential home invader. The tests themselves would be fairly simple consisting of two parts. One would be a simple written test to show an understanding as to safe storage and handling of the respective guns at home - the added advantage here is that owners would have no excuse for storing guns in a dangerous place or condition. The second part would require live firing at a test site under supervision. The second test isn't about showing you are an expert marksman, rather that you can hold and shoot a gun in a way that isn't dangerous to yourself or others, such as holding the gun sideways or having your hand cover part of the weapon that is likely to injure the shooter. Higher level licences would require more difficult testing, with the highest level ones requiring evidence that the guns would/will be stored in a secured place and maybe a very good reason for needing such a licence. Those who are already responsible owners should find these tests easy to pass. Those who are not are either going to have to learn, or not be able to legally own a gun. I favor only making sure they aren't a danger to others. why tamper too much with natural selection? more seriously. in Oregon you have to have a license to operate a car, a powerboat, and a bar. requiring a license to operate a gun is not a big deal. as for provisional license and juvenile ownership - in Oregon you have to be a minimum of 18 to own a long gun, and 21 to own a pistol. there are already a LOT of parents here who have gotten guns for their underage kids - the parent legally owns the gun until the kid is old enough to legally own it. doing away with the provisional license system and using the long gun - pistol - military arm is based on our current structure. the "a" subdivision in my schedule may be a specialty license for collectors, or it may be a required endorsement for people to own black powder weapons. (the idea being they do have some specialized requirements for safety) I would also say (as I have said before) that the whole licensing system should be administrated by an independent agency (I.E. not under the authority of the BATF (bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms)) Keep in mind that to be effective such a licence system would need to be universal throughout the US, meaning that the licences would be federal licences with individual States being able to vary some of the specifics as to what the licences cover and age restrictions in line with existing laws and traditions. We also need to keep funding in mind, as you can bet that politicians and pro gun groups will do their best to sink any such plan by complaining about the cost even if they claim they are in favour of such a system. Creating an entirely new organisation to administrate this would cost a fortune. It would be faster, cheaper and probably simpler to initially administer the system through an existing agency. With the option of later spinning that department off into its own organisation at a later date.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 9, 2016 16:36:56 GMT
We also need to keep funding in mind, as you can bet that politicians and pro gun groups will do their best to sink any such plan by complaining about the cost even if they claim they are in favour of such a system. Creating an entirely new organisation to administrate this would cost a fortune. It would be faster, cheaper and probably simpler to initially administer the system through an existing agency. With the option of later spinning that department off into its own organisation at a later date. What some would say, including me, is that it's an overly complicated and expensive system that will have a minimal effect on the real problem which is gun violence. It's another distraction from the real problems facing our country. We need to go after the people committing the violent acts, not over regulating those that aren't.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 9, 2016 17:09:03 GMT
We also need to keep funding in mind, as you can bet that politicians and pro gun groups will do their best to sink any such plan by complaining about the cost even if they claim they are in favour of such a system. Creating an entirely new organisation to administrate this would cost a fortune. It would be faster, cheaper and probably simpler to initially administer the system through an existing agency. With the option of later spinning that department off into its own organisation at a later date. What some would say, including me, is that it's an overly complicated and expensive system that will have a minimal effect on the real problem which is gun violence. It's another distraction from the real problems facing our country. We need to go after the people committing the violent acts, not over regulating those that aren't. because it is a huge imposition to be required to produce a piece of plastic with an ID number on it when you want to buy a gun instead of hand filling a triplicate form and waiting for it to be processed through the agency currently in charge of background checks. or did you miss the implication that the licensing system eliminates the whole background check process, because the only check necessary is to confirm the validity of the license. - as the licensee has already had all the necessary checks. my thinking would be that the agency would be able to be funded by administrating the safety classes involved in promoting gun safety. - and by funding no longer necessary to administrate the current hodgepodge of processes used. or are you advocating to eliminate the current motor vehicle operator's license program because it is more cost effective to just wait until people get into crashes before you decide whether they can safely operate a vehicle or not? compare these two processes: do you have a license for the gun you want to buy? (Y/N) or Are you old enough to buy the gun you want to buy? (Y/N) have you been convicted of a felony? (Y/N) are you on probation for a non-felony crime? (Y/N) do you know how to operate a gun? (currently not allowed to ask) do you have a diagnosed mental illness that affects your ability to safely have a gun? (currently not allowed to ask) is there another reason why you would not be allowed to own a gun? (don't even know how to ask) again: you cannot get rid of rats by refusing to make any changes; and usually the first change a pest control person will recommend is to clean up the mess, so you can see what you are doing. and the reason for having an independent agency is that their ONLY job is keeping track of whether a person may legally own a particular type of gun or not. not what they own, not how many they own. only yes, they can buy that, or no they cannot buy that.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 9, 2016 18:05:05 GMT
What some would say, including me, is that it's an overly complicated and expensive system that will have a minimal effect on the real problem which is gun violence. It's another distraction from the real problems facing our country. We need to go after the people committing the violent acts, not over regulating those that aren't. because it is a huge imposition to be required to produce a piece of plastic with an ID number on it when you want to buy a gun instead of hand filling a triplicate form and waiting for it to be processed through the agency currently in charge of background checks. or did you miss the implication that the licensing system eliminates the whole background check process, because the only check necessary is to confirm the validity of the license. - as the licensee has already had all the necessary checks. my thinking would be that the agency would be able to be funded by administrating the safety classes involved in promoting gun safety. - and by funding no longer necessary to administrate the current hodgepodge of processes used. or are you advocating to eliminate the current motor vehicle operator's license program because it is more cost effective to just wait until people get into crashes before you decide whether they can safely operate a vehicle or not? compare these two processes: do you have a license for the gun you want to buy? (Y/N) or Are you old enough to buy the gun you want to buy? (Y/N) have you been convicted of a felony? (Y/N) are you on probation for a non-felony crime? (Y/N) do you know how to operate a gun? (currently not allowed to ask) do you have a diagnosed mental illness that affects your ability to safely have a gun? (currently not allowed to ask) is there another reason why you would not be allowed to own a gun? (don't even know how to ask) again: you cannot get rid of rats by refusing to make any changes; and usually the first change a pest control person will recommend is to clean up the mess, so you can see what you are doing. and the reason for having an independent agency is that their ONLY job is keeping track of whether a person may legally own a particular type of gun or not. not what they own, not how many they own. only yes, they can buy that, or no they cannot buy that. I currently have a card I have to show whenever I want to buy a gun or ammunition. It's my FOID card and I see nothing wrong with that. Again, if you could press some magic reset button and all the illegally owned guns would disappear, then a more stringent vetting process for obtaining new guns would have some benefit. But unless we can get the 300 million guns that are already in circulation off the streets, you're just spinning your wheels. How about this. We allow all police to stop and frisk any suspicious person in an area that is known for a high rate of gun crime. If a gun is found on that person, not only is the gun confiscated, but the person is given the option of either serving 2 years in prison, or turning in two more guns off the street. Another program is to offer a reward for anyone turning in a gun to police, no questions asked. This has been tried in some areas and has worked. Not perfect, but it's a lot more effective at getting guns out of the hands of those that may use them, than trying to keep guns out of the hands of those that don't. If you have any other ideas of reducing the current gun base, I'd like to hear them. Then we can talk about stricter control on new gun purchases.
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Jan 9, 2016 19:35:22 GMT
What some would say, including me, is that it's an overly complicated and expensive system that will have a minimal effect on the real problem which is gun violence. It's another distraction from the real problems facing our country. We need to go after the people committing the violent acts, not over regulating those that aren't. because it is a huge imposition to be required to produce a piece of plastic with an ID number on it when you want to buy a gun instead of hand filling a triplicate form and waiting for it to be processed through the agency currently in charge of background checks. or did you miss the implication that the licensing system eliminates the whole background check process, because the only check necessary is to confirm the validity of the license. - as the licensee has already had all the necessary checks. my thinking would be that the agency would be able to be funded by administrating the safety classes involved in promoting gun safety. - and by funding no longer necessary to administrate the current hodgepodge of processes used. or are you advocating to eliminate the current motor vehicle operator's license program because it is more cost effective to just wait until people get into crashes before you decide whether they can safely operate a vehicle or not? compare these two processes: do you have a license for the gun you want to buy? (Y/N) or Are you old enough to buy the gun you want to buy? (Y/N) have you been convicted of a felony? (Y/N) are you on probation for a non-felony crime? (Y/N) do you know how to operate a gun? (currently not allowed to ask) do you have a diagnosed mental illness that affects your ability to safely have a gun? (currently not allowed to ask) is there another reason why you would not be allowed to own a gun? (don't even know how to ask) again: you cannot get rid of rats by refusing to make any changes; and usually the first change a pest control person will recommend is to clean up the mess, so you can see what you are doing. and the reason for having an independent agency is that their ONLY job is keeping track of whether a person may legally own a particular type of gun or not. not what they own, not how many they own. only yes, they can buy that, or no they cannot buy that. There is already an "independant" agency of the ATF, the NFA or the National Firearms Act branch. They only do the background checks for a very limited number of of firearms already in their data base, in addition to suppressors, destructive devices, and short barreled rifles/shotguns. The average await is 6-9 MONTHS. This is for an extremely limited class of firearms and accessories. I really do not see how more government will help. How long will the wait be when everybody has to get it. You would have another IRS level office. We know how well and fair they work.
|
|