Gun nuts proposal for gun control

[Glenn E. Meyer]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...federal-semi-automatic-firearm-license-218072

This is an interesting piece that attempts to bridge the gaps between both sides of the debate. It proposes a Federal license for semis as follows:

The idea is simple but powerful: a federally issued license for simple possession of all semi-automatic firearms. This license would allow us to carefully vet civilian access to semi-automatic weapons, while overriding state-specific weapon bans and eliminating some of the federal paperwork that ties specific firearms to specific owners.

It has features that might seem problematic to both sides and gives a pro and con view from both side.

It is interesting to discuss. I strongly caution to discuss it rationally and without just posting a single line of cliches, insults or rants. If you want to post, let's have some legit analyses.

 

[SPEMack618]

It's a very interesting concept. That might work.

I doubt it gains any sort of traction. The "no compromise" crowd on both sides of the issue won't entertain any sort of rational idea like the proposed above.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

In considering such a proposal, I would like an addition of hanguns, such that states like NY, CA, MA, etc. would have to give up their onerous requirements and delays for purchasing handguns.

That would allow the general populace to have access to reasonable options for self-defense.

I agree that the no-compromise folks of both sides would make discussion difficult.

 

[44 AMP]

The proposed "semi auto license" covers like a blanker, and has more holes than a colander....

Where to start.....

I realize the idea of having Sauron's "One Ring to rule them all" is appealing, something uniform, which would override or do away with the complex hodgepodge of gun laws we currently have.

Even assuming it were possible, I caution all to remember the rest of Tolkein's quote, because I think there is an apt parallel.

"one ring to rule them all, one ring to find them. One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."

It's all well and good to speak in broad general terms, about this, and deflect various arguments with "that will be worked out later", but its not any kind of a realistic proposal.

He repeatedly states "you won't be any worse off than you are now"...
Which is his opinion (naturally) but that doesn't make it fact.

Special license for semi autos?? Why stop there??? Why not just a "gun owner's license"? and forget all the wrangling and argument about types of guns, capacity, features, or any other details about the firearm, period.?

If said concept licensed me (assuming I could accept the details of the process) to possess ANY firearm, any where, any time (with the exception of private property) then, I would consider it. Semi auto, FULL AUTO, silencers, suppressors, sawed off shotguns, any or every gun everywhere, any time. I might go for that.

But that isn't going to happen, for a huge host of reasons. Too many people have too much at stake, both financially (careers) and personal and political prestige to agree to that.

And if they don't agree, then we're back to Fed law ramming something down state's and citizen's throats.

Give me one broad Federal law, and wipe out all other Federal, State, and local laws? Pipe dream.

Let Federal semi auto license holders buy, sell, and trade freely? Cool. Now tell me how you justify allowing that, and at the same time, making me go through an FFL dealer and background check for a SINGLE SHOT firearm, or a revolver... Each and EVERY TIME!!

Details left out (to be worked out later?) Cost, requirements, and currency...
meaning how "current" is the license? Meaning, how do "we" know you didn't become a prohibited person in between the issuance of the license and today??

And, don't forget the implied "we are all guilty, until proven innocent" and having to get a license (permission) to exercise a fundamental right.

The Author makes the point how his plan would keep a restrictive state from busting you for bringing your AR or "oversize clip" into their state ( assume by nullifying the law(s) which make it a "restrictive state".

However, later on, he says that his plan would NOT impact local carry ordinances. Carry an AR in Times Square?? ok, under his plan, NY could not bust you for HAVING the AR, but NYC could bust you for carrying it!! I find that to be... less than optimal. And could, in fact entice people into breaking the law, believing they were protected.

One of those little details that would have to be worked out, I suppose....

I don't see how any additional license (at any level) makes us "free-er"...nor do I see his plan as anything even remotely "equal treatment under the law". I don't see anything but creating another special class of restriction under the claim of liberty.

Semi auto license holders could buy, sell, & trade all they want, with other license holders, with no govt paperwork. Fine (this is what we should have, WITHOUT any special new license), BUT not with anyone who does not have the special license, AND only with semi autos. Want to buy, sell, trade a revolver??? Back to current rules!! This arbitrary separation of "good & bad" guns, and special perks for licensees isn't a good thing.

And, I've left out a lot, but consider this, as well, when (not if) some one who IS a semi auto license holder commits a crime (let alone a mass killing), then we will be right back where we are now, but with an additional level of licensing (gun control) that ALSO FAILED TO WORK...

And I deliberately avoided (for now) the potential for abuse under the proposed law, that's another can of worms right there....

 

[DaleA]

A very interesting idea. I recommend folk go read it.

It's VERY appealing to imagine that one could bypass all the snarly and contradictory laws (some states you can't have hollow point ammo, some states have magazine limits etc., etc.) by having this Federal permit.

I'm suspicious that some of the appeal is that we are all imagining ourselves as OF COURSE qualifying for the Federal permit. We'd all be kind of an elite group with this Federal license. Like I said, this appeal of being 'in the elite' might just blind many of us to bad points of this proposal. With stars in our eyes we might support it to find out the reality of the law could be quite different. (Reread 44 AMP post above for some of the negatives of this proposal.)

As a practical matter, how long would it take to process everybody that has a semi-auto gun already. There are literally millions of us.

One neat thing about THIS proposal is it might force the anti-gun folk to admit nothing short of a ban on all semi-auto guns (maybe even ALL guns) will satisfy them.

Oh, by the way, this won't stop or even reduce the amount of 'gun violence' we have in this country. (But it WOULD be doing SOMETHING.)

 

[zxcvbob]

You know the end game is total disarmament, right? I can't believe anyone here would seriously consider such a license.

What I'm hoping for is an overreach; pass some draconian law, and gun owners collectively give the government the middle finger. It should end in a standoff, and *everybody* loses respect for laws in general.

 

[Danoobie]

Only three thoughts:

1. We would be hard pressed for the states like NJ, IL, NY and CA to
go along with this.

2. Hopefully we wouldn't find out, too late, how this Federal mandate could be abused.
At first glance, financial assistance, to spouse-less women with children to support,
seemed like a good idea(the assumption was it would be primarily war widows).
Have a gander at how that legislation has been abused today, and what Welfare
has turned into. Because the initial concept, at first read, seemed brilliant.

3. Why not go a step further. Issue Federal picture ID, to all, after vetting. List firearm status, voting status, criminal status, military status, civilian and
citizenship status, etc. Because the
original idea makes for just a long list of all folks who own semi-auto weapons.
Which, I'm sorry if this seems improper, sounds a lot like a National Registry,
to me. Shouldn't this National Registry serve a higher purpose? As in,
for instance, Voter Registration?

 

[Minorcan]

One more rule, one more code, one more law, etc., etc., etc. We have plenty of rules, codes, laws, etc. It’s the enforcement side that opts or chooses not to enforce them. Like why isn’t the father of the recent shooter that gave the rifle back to a certifie restricted person in jail or at least charged? Why aren’t the School Board and Sherriff’s office being charged for choosing not to charge repeat offenders thereby circumventing and not enforcing the law so the school shooter in Broward County did not appear as the criminal he was and is on the Form 4473?

Enough with more bad ideas.

 

[Nathan]

It might be fine,but remember GOPA? You cannot preempt state law with federal law. States rights. They will have that part struck down by the federal courts. Then I n all the gun banning states, the law will be the same, but now you need this not free card.

Repeal NFA. Hold lawmakers accountable. 80 yrs later the mob and gang rule still exist in Chicago and New York. It failed. Repeal it.

Repeal GOPA including Hughes amendment. It failed.

Repeal GCA. It failed.

There has to be some accountability and address of the root cause.

 

[Tom Servo]

Let's not forget how Washington DC banned handguns. As soon as the District got home rule, the city council voted 12-1 to require a permit to possess a handgun within the city limits. No big deal, right?

As soon as the law passed, Mayor Washington ordered the police to stop issuing permits. Nobody could legally acquire or possess a handgun. Convenient, huh?

So, yeah. No.

As for the idea of "let's give them X in exchange for Y," also, no. This seems to be a pipe dream that many people keep advancing. Gun control advocates want one thing: massive restrictions on the RKBA, if not an outright ban on civilian gun ownership. To that end, they push their agenda through however they can, honesty be damned.

Fake "studies" they hope nobody will scrutinize too closely? Yep. False-flag "pro-gun, but..." organizations like AHSA and the Bull Moose Sportsmen? You betcha. Leaders who operate under fake identities? Oh, yeah.

Any concession they appear to give us will inevitably be poisoned, and it will be revoked the first chance they get. They don't want compromise; they want appeasement, and there's no dealing with them in good faith.

 

[Evan Thomas]

I find it odd that there's so much in this that suggests either a great deal of ignorance on the part of this self-proclaimed "gun nut," or that he's deliberately leaving room for the thin ends of all sorts of wedges. Just one example: he writes that the federal ID is to pertain only to possession of semiautomatic firearms, and then says that the status of lever and pump guns is a "detail" that would have to be worked out. Huh?? What is there to "work out?" There's no ambiguity as to whether the latter are semi-automatic -- they're not, so why imply that they somehow might count as such?

My overall impression is that this is disingenuous on all sorts of levels...

 

[Tom Servo]

he writes that the federal ID is to pertain only to possession of semiautomatic firearms, and then says that the status of lever and pump guns is a "detail" that would have to be worked out.

Today's pesky "detail" is tomorrow's "loophole."

 

[turkeestalker]

My overall impression is that this is disingenuous on all sorts of levels...

Sometimes I get the impression that some self proclaimed "gun nuts" and enthusiasts are not who they represent themselves to be and are not necessarily playing on our team, even though they claim to be.
Better get to fashioning myself a tin foil hat I guess!

 

[zukiphile]

The punchline of this gun control scheme is...

If you weren’t a license holder, then simple possession of any semi-auto weapon would be a felony.

I give it three out of five Australias.

This gun nut betrays a casual regard for a civil right. He "imagines a three or five years grace period during which the possession he wants to make a felony wouldn't yet be a felony. What are the odds that a Congress that would pass this kind of regulation would be as gentle as his imagination? Or that Congress would leave legal rifles and components that are now legal.

Stokes concedes the damage his proposal does to the right.

Objection: Wouldn’t this federal license be a “kill switch” on the right to keep and bear arms? As you’ve conceded, a hostile federal government could change the requirements in such a way that bars almost all of us from getting guns.

Me: This would be a concern, but it’s already a concern. We may have to rely on the courts for protection.

In Stokes' words,

Sorry, friend, but you lost all credibility on that score when you backed...

...a federal license for activity protected in the BOR.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Yeah, every person with an interest in the Second Amendment thinks “but wait, we can work this out if only... blah blah blah.”

Here is the thing. No matter what you do, whether you ban semi-autos entirely, license all gun owners, whatever. The very next day, a professional organization with great media access is going to demand more gun laws.

Laws that start out with a “Sure, this opens up a potential avenue for trenendous legal abuse” WILL be abused; and not in the distant future either. I mean, look at the Founders... they engineered a competing system of checks and balances and basic individual rights that made ot extremely difficult to concentrate and abuse power; but we’ve managed to do it despite their best efforts.

Let’s all get licensed and hope it doesn’t bite us in the butt later is at best a delaying strategy until you can win the culture war. If you don’t have a surefire strategy to win that war, you are signing your own death warrant - and if by some chance you are winning that war, you just gave the enemy space to breathe.

I mean, it is an attractive idea if you are trying to work out a compromise between two reasonable people. In politics though, an unreasonable person WILL have that power one day. Hoping that happens after you are dead isn’t much of a solution.

 

[JERRYS.]

what other constitutionally protected inalienable right do they propose be licensed in order to exercise? the constitution restricts government not people. when government power grows, the people's rights shrink.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Licenses that are granted by the government can be revoked by the government.

My copy of the Second Amendment doesn't include any mention of a license. It says I have a "right" to keep and bear arms. The author of that proposal is a Fudd. You knew he was a Fudd as soon as he opened the article by stating his gun creds.

I am a gun industry insider, a lifelong gun owner and a vocal advocate for Second Amendment rights. I am a Texan and an American patriot who hauls my family to church every Sunday in a diesel pickup truck, where I sit in the pew and listen to the Word with a 9mm pistol tucked inside the waistband of my fanciest jeans.

Isn't this the part where the author inserts the inevitable “but”—as in, “I’m a firm Second Amendment advocate, but … ”? Well I’ve got no “buts” for you, because I don't need them.

No "buts"? I'd say proposing to scrap the Second Amendment in favor of a harebrained licensing scheme is a huge "but."

 

[Buzzcook]

This is basically registration by another name. I don't have a problem with it and I doubt there is a constitutional objection, but this won't fly with a large segment of gun owners who view registration as synonymous with fascism.

A license might be even more objectionable than registration because it implies some sort of test. A test before you can use a right just might not pass constitutional muster. Registration at least pays lip service to a well regulated militia.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

This is basically registration by another name. I don't have a problem with it and I doubt there is a constitutional objection, but this won't fly with a large segment of gun owners who view registration as synonymous with fascism.

How is it not unconstitutional?

Test or no test, a license is a permission slip. Why should I need permission to exercise a constitutionally-guaranteed right?

 

[44 AMP]

Why should I need permission to exercise a constitutionally-guaranteed right?

And yet, we do it all the time. And not just gun control.

We do it to maintain civil order.

Say you and 300 close personal friends want to march down (any) street to show your support or your protest for ...(insert cause here)...

If you don't get a permission slip you are going to be arrested.

Free speech, right to assemble, all good, but get your permit first or you will be arrested.