Gun nuts proposal for gun control

[armoredman]

Regardless of others opinions, I reject the licensing idea completely and wholeheartedly. I find it reprehensible and unconstitutional, (please do not lecture me on my ignorance of law - I did NOT go to law school, it's just my layman's opinion), and point out that we in AZ have been doing JUST FINE without any of that nonsense since we became a state. The "gun nut" is a shill for Bloomers, I imagine.

 

[turkeestalker]

The author of that proposal is a Fudd

I have a hard time keeping up with the newest slang sometimes, but yes he certainly is.

 

[zukiphile]

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.

We don't need permits to speak in open public fora, travel, vote, worship, or publish. Although the 1st Am. on its face only applies to Congress, even when states try to regulate protest, they run into a body of constitutional doctrine that restricts state power considerably. There is a context that gives the right some heft.

On the other hand, an amorphous federal "vetting" of who may possess a modern rifle without becoming a felon is a fairly radical gun control proposal. Why?

Because,

Laws that start out with a “Sure, this opens up a potential avenue for tremendous legal abuse” WILL be abused

Power doesn't routinely just sit around unused. Someone is going to think he is doing the "right thing" in the midst of a political opportunity, and the issue will be what the government allows, not what rights people have.

Stokes bridges the gap between those who believe the 2d Am. describes a right and those who don't; he does it by gutting the right.

 

[kozak6]

Universal registration of firearms is a no go, so why not just ban semiautomatics (and maybe lever actions and pump guns ) in the guise of an owner registration scheme?

And federally preempt state registries and AWB's since they won't matter anymore with a de facto semiauto ban.

He doesn't address revolvers (but might include levers and pumps as semiautomatics) so it seems ill considered. He also shrugs off the issue of concealed carry.

 

[Spats McGee]

No, no, no.

I smell a rat, and the more I went through the article, the more ratlike he smells. He's either woefully ignorant of the current state of affairs, or lying. He starts with:

I 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. . . .

He lays it on pretty thick for a guy who "doesn't need" buts. That's a bit of a red flag for me. He then promptly moves on to:

I believe there is a way to increase both our individual gun rights and our collective safety, if we can only get gun controllers to quit bitterly clinging to outmoded feature bans and gun registries, and convince gun rights advocates that “liberty” isn’t just about “what's in my gun safe” but also about being able to exercise one’s full spectrum of Second Amendment rights in every part of this great nation.

The idea is simple but powerful: a federally issued license for simple possession of all semi-automatic firearms. . . . .

Somehow, requiring a federal license to do exactly what American citizens can already do in about 42 out of 50 states does not seems like it increases our gun rights. It sounds like Orwellian doublespeak in which "freedom" means "a license is required."

With my reservations about the author's candor having been aired, let's go through some of the particulars, shall we?

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.

First of all, the general problem. Why should I have to be "carefully vetted" for the RKBA, when other fundamental, individual rights apparently can apparently be exercised without any identification whatsoever? Why should I have to be "carefully vetted" to continue doing that which I've done for 30 years without issue?

More specifically, who's going to do the vetting and what will the standards be? Why would I ever agree to this, knowing that those standards will be set by Congressional vote? My puny little state only has 6 members of Congress, and I have no recourse if a CA/NY/IL representative puts impossible standards in the law, except to challenge through litigation. I can't run against that rep, and I may or may not be able to back a political challenger.

The author knows this is a problem:

Objection: You haven't said what the licensing requirements are. I think that anyone who wants to own a semi-auto should have four letters of recommendation, a yearly psychiatric evaluation, be a graduate of Ranger School, and have participated in at least one “Jeopardy!” Tournament of Champions.

Me: Yeah, we're going to fight over that. A lot, probably. But that fight would be way more reality-centered and sane than our current fights over pistol grips and barrel shrouds and telescoping stocks.

What, precisely makes Stokes think that the "fight would be way more reality-centered and sane" than the fights we currently have? We have a large, well-funded segment of society that thinks gun ownership itself oughta be a crime. Why would they suddenly become reasonable?

I think the author lets us peek at the hand he's actually holding here:

I offer this idea not only because I actually want to live in a world where it, or something like it, is the law of the land, . . . .

and here:

If you weren’t a license holder, then simple possession of any semi-auto weapon would be a felony. Don’t have one on your person, or in your car or home. As for taking possession of the types of guns you could have without a license, then it’s universal background checks and FFL transfers for you—basically the status quo, in most states.

He wants possession of a semiauto firearm without a license to be a FELONY, and claims that things that universal background checks are the status quo in most states. There's a saying I like: Not just no, but Hell, no.

Stokes clearly does not remember the fights leading up to the original AWB:

In the aftermath of these killings, we’re hearing proposals for anti-gun measures that we thought were widely considered out of bounds in the gun control debate, like a ban on all semi-automatic firearms, a repeal of the Second Amendment, or even an outright ban on the private ownership of guns. Some of us think this will all blow over, as it always does. And maybe it will. But this time definitely feels different.

Who's this "we?" Does he have a mouse in his pocket? And what are these proposals that "we" thought were widely considered out of bounds? Antigunners have, to all appearances, never considered anything out of bounds in this fight. None of the proposals he lays out above are even new. He's either too young to remember or too dishonest to admit to remembering "if I'd have had 51 votes, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in." Or the fact that somebody in Congress has introduced the same gun control bill, an AWB, every year since 1995. Or that after every high-profile shooting, celebrities and a handful of politicians go cry in front of the camera, blaming "the NRA" for crap that its members didn't do. Those same folks who go on TV to tell us that "nobody needs" X. Justice Stevens' recent article on the repeal of the 2A is hardly the first time it's been suggested.

Moving on . . .

What, then, can be done about the violence that plagues our cities and the mass shootings that terrorize us in our malls, theaters, churches and workplaces? I think there is an answer, but it involves forgetting about the “what” and focusing squarely on the “who.”

So . . . His suggestion is to increase the vetting on folks who aren't doing the shooting. Way to go, Jon.

A federal license for all semi-automatic firearms would rest on two simple and well-defined concepts, one technical and one legal:

1) A “semi-automatic” firearm is one that fires a single round for each pull of the trigger, automatically reloading in between each shot until the ammo is depleted.

2) “Possession” is a legal concept from the drug war that implies that a person has a contraband item “on or about one’s person,” or has “control” over the item, perhaps by having it in a motor vehicle or in a home.

Because both of these things—“possession” and “semi-automatic weapons”—are easy to define, they're easy to regulate.

Just because it's "easy" doesn't make it either right or smart. And one minor point: Possession is not a concept "from the drug war." Without going on the hunt for the roots of the word in legal terms, I'll bet it's as old as the concept of contraband. And make no mistake, this author's proposal is a step towards making firearms into contraband.

Combine these two concepts with a thorough but reasonable vetting process, and you have the makings of a straightforward, effective system for keeping the most lethal class of weapons out of the hands of bad actors, while simultaneously lifting the burden of arbitrary weapon bans and federal red tape from law-abiding gun owners.

I've addressed my concern for the standards in this before, so I won't beat it to death. This whole paragraph smacks of either ridiculous bureaucratic problems or horrible dishonesty. "Thorough but reasonable?" "Lifting the burden of arbritary" gun laws? Yeah, that will last until about the first "states rights" lawsuit.

License holders could swap such guns among themselves without the need for any sort of official transfer mechanism—like today’s Federal Firearm License transfers—that leaves a paper trail with the state. Right now, all retail gun purchases, and private-party gun transfers in many states, involve a two-step process: First, the purchaser fills out a paper form that links the gun to the buyer, and second, the seller conducts a federal background check. . . . .

So, I'd have to go get a federal license to do what I can currently do with any Arkansas resident? And who are these "many states" that require FFLs to be involved in private party sales? I count about 10. Sure looks like fluffing the numbers to make UBCs look more reasonable.

If you were a federal gun license holder, you wouldn’t have to do an FFL transfer whenever you take delivery of a firearm. This would make buying a gun of any type exactly like buying alcohol or any other controlled substance (for example, prescription drugs): . . . .

Since when did I need a prescription for whiskey? And since when did I have to be "carefully vetted" for it? I suppose I am (in a sense) vetted for prescriptions.

The gun rights side would be justifiably concerned that a hostile Congress and president could one day attempt to use the licensing scheme to limit the gun rights of large, law-abiding sections of the population, possibly on some arbitrary pretext.

Now wherever would we get such an idea? Frankly, this harebrained scheme is nothing more than gun owner registration. Let's call it what it is.

Gun safety advocates would have the security of knowing that anyone who lawfully possesses a semi-automatic weapon has been thoroughly vetted, and that there are clear criteria in place for temporarily or permanently revoking that license should the gun owner cross agreed-upon lines.

Whoopee. Tell me again how this is a compromise?

An initial set of licensing requirements would undoubtedly include having one’s fingerprints on file with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and a thorough background check that screens for things like domestic violence convictions and inclusion in the government’s terrorist watch list (assuming that list has been fixed by adding a way for innocent people to get their names removed).

He's awfully trusting with my 2A right.

Gun controllers have long desired a national firearm licensing scheme that includes safe storage requirements and a demonstration of basic weapon proficiency; these things would be part of the negotiations.

He seems pretty trusting with my 4A rights, too.

If they didn’t make the first cut, there would be a place to implement them should they gain popular support.

You mean, like the legislative process? That's already there? Or is he looking for ways to make implementation of gun control even easier?

Maybe gun controllers could offer the pro-gun side something it badly wants, like relaxing the federal restrictions on suppressors, in exchange for them.

Maybe so, but it hasn't happened yet. And if we can get enough popular support (which admittedly seems unlikely), we can remove suppressors from the NFA. What in the hell makes him think the antigunners will ever concede suppressors?

The threat of temporary or permanent license revocation would create added leverage to enforce laws around disorderly conduct, road rage, domestic violence and similar offenses that may indicate that a person is a danger to others but don’t always rise to the level of a felony that gets them flagged as a prohibited person in the current background check system.

Seriously?!? Disorderly conduct?!? So if I get into a verbal argument with my wife at a restaurant, I could have my federal semiauto license revoked? And risk FELONY penalties for possessing my Ruger Mk IV? That's an incredibly low bar for stripping someone of constitutional rights.

In exchange for the above rules, law-abiding gun owners would enjoy a new freedom to move to any state without surrendering any of their firearms, and to travel anywhere in the country without fear of being jailed for being pulled over with the wrong size magazine in their car.In exchange for the above rules, law-abiding gun owners would enjoy a new freedom to move to any state without surrendering any of their firearms, and to travel anywhere in the country without fear of being jailed for being pulled over with the wrong size magazine in their car.

Precisely what makes him think NY/CA/IL/MD/ETC will agree to that? And even overlooking the LEGION of problems with it, what makes him think the other states have the votes to push this through?

Most important, the many Second Amendment advocates for whom the threat of a national gun registry (and possible future gun confiscation) is a major concern could rest easier, knowing that such a registry would be taken off the table as a practical matter.

Taken off the table for how long? And why is a gun owner registry any better?

Objection: Are you going to confiscate my semi-autos if I refuse to get a license?

Me: No, I’m not. I imagine there would be something like a three- to five-year grace period, during which time existing semi-auto owners would either get a license or transfer their guns to someone who does have a license.

Liar. He's not advocating confiscating them all at once, just doing it by dribs and drabs as non-licensees are caught. Here's where I shamelessly adopt zuik's rating system: I give this plan 3.5 out of 4 Australias.

Objection: I live in a state where I can buy any gun I want from a private party, without a background check or FFL transfer that puts me into a government database. So this decreases my liberty because now I’ll need a license to do something I can currently do without one.

Me: You’re not thinking big-picture enough. Yes, you're blessed to live in Gun Country right now, but what if you get a new job and have to move? Do you have the liberty to move anywhere in the United States and take your guns with you? Do you have the liberty to take your AR-15 “truck gun” with you when you vacation in a less-free state? No, you absolutely do not. But under my scheme, you will, because this whole thing is a nonstarter if the law that institutes the licensing regime doesn’t also prevent states from putting in place their own arbitrary feature bans.

This is downright insulting and, quite frankly, typical of the antigunners. "You're not thinking big-picture enough" isn't far off from "you don't understand." I can assure him, and everyone else reading this that I'm perfectly capable of understanding the issues here.

Objection: Gun ownership is a constitutional right, and we don’t license constitutional rights. You don’t need a special license for free speech, for instance.

Me: You wouldn’t need a license to own lots and lots of guns of different types under this scheme, either. You would just need a license to own semi-autos, just like you need a license to broadcast over certain parts of the public airways.

Liar. "You wouldn't need a license . . . just need a license to own semi-autos." IOW, our overlords might let us keep revolvers and lever guns. Might.

I could go on and on about the objections he lays out and the responses that he posits, but I won't. It's Sunday morning & I want to take my wife (and a pistol, maybe even an awful unlicensed semiauto) to breakfast. He's an antigunner's wet dream. He knows enough about guns to sound credible, and perfectly willing to slide on past really important, but pesky details.

Ladies and gentlemen, here's the punch line:

The requirements above, when combined with background checks for all weapon transfers involving an unlicensed party, amount to universal background checks on steroids. In other words, you get universal background checks as a baseline for everyone, and then for the more dangerous class of weapons you get the extra vetting that the license requirements would provide.

Please read that part at least twice. He's advocating for UBCs for ALL firearms, and exceptional vetting for "more dangerous weapons." He's also advocating revocation of the license to carry any semiauto for "disorderly conduct."

Not just no. Hell, no.

 

[44 AMP]

Combine these two concepts with a thorough but reasonable vetting process, and you have the makings of a straightforward, effective system for keeping the most lethal class of weapons out of the hands of bad actors, while simultaneously lifting the burden of arbitrary weapon bans and federal red tape from law-abiding gun owners.

There are just so many things wrong with just this statement, let alone the rest of his writings.

"thorough and reasonable vetting process"???
Not with our government involved.

Nothing our government gets involved with stays "simple, thorough, straightforward, or reasonable, if it even was to begin with.

lifting the burden of arbitrary weapon bans and federal red tape from law-abiding gun owners.

this is the icing on the cake, and the cherry on top. Adding another layer of arbitrary weapons bans and federal red tape on law abiding gun owners does not lift any burden from us. Quite the opposite.

All I'm seeing here is someone telling me that if I put on his handcuffs (and blindfold) then (and only then) will I truly be free...

I'm not getting in his van, nor handing him that roll of duct tape, either...

 

[Danoobie]

Another big issue here is the segment of the market semi-auto entails. Any legislation
to that effect includes, to say the very least, the lion's share of the market, solely thru
the mention of this one design feature.

 

[stonewall50]

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:







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.

When one can easily pass the license...what relevance does it have? The parkland shooter was reported how many times? The issue isn’t with gun control. The left (or rather authoritarian view because sadly there are some nincompoops on the right who agree with them) will keep screeching about how we need gun control. They will talk about how we can’t own “nuclear weapons” as if it makes a difference. They will keep pushing the agenda farther demanding more and more. And just like the Clinton ban? It won’t be enough. It won’t stop columbines or anything else.

It reminds me of how politicians blamed the weapons and technology for the First World War. And then severely limited every nation’s standing military to prevent another major war. And it worked so well...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

Glenn, I understand your motive in posting the above but ... what if the concept proposed is (as has been comprehensively discussed already) fundamentally so flawed that it's not worthy of serious discussion, only of ridicule and derision? I think Spats dissected it rather thoroughly and I greatly appreciate his insights from a legal perspective. That said, ultimately I didn't truly need the legal analysis to grasp that the proposal is ... to be kind ... nuts. You don't want cliches, but most of the cliches were made just for proposals like this.

 

[TXAZ]

Even if adopted and sponsored 'as is' in Congress, what he proposes, vs. what is likely to pass, are likely 2 very different things.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I don’t doubt the author is well-meaning. I think the basic problem is he assumes the people driving the gun control debate are well-meaning but poorly informed. I think that is probably the majority of support for gun control; but I don’t think they are the ones driving gun control policy.

I believe the people driving gun control policy will never be satisfied and their core support is unlikely to inform themselves better. So, I don’t see this as a workable solution. It just adds a new restriction and since it won’t prevent another tragedy, we’ll be right back at having our rights narrowed in short order.

 

[Nathan]

I don’t doubt the author is well-meaning. I think the basic problem is he assumes the people driving the gun control debate are well-meaning but poorly informed. I think that is probably the majority of support for gun control; but I don’t think they are the ones driving gun control policy.

Good point. The author is showing how poorly informed he is. The issue is not and never has been the ability of these weapons to shoot up innocent people. The issue is these weapons can and are used throughout the world to stop authoritarian governments. The mear free ownership and use blocks authoritarian actions. The issue is that the gun policy makers want an end of private gun ownership. That is their problem to solve. It has nothing to do with violence, shooting, etc. Those are vehicles to develop support from the masses. Look, they have Jon on board. They have many lesser educated on board.

When have you seen Bloomberg, Pelosi, Clinton when they were not surrounded by guns? If it was such a good idea, they would ban guns in congress first.

Don't misunderstand their intelligence. These are smart people. Often college and graduate school educated. They are working on a strategy with multiple levels of manipulation to control who owns guns....they are ok with guns in the hands of criminals. Look they are doing nothing about that in Chicago. Their fear is controlling the other educated gun owners who may not like some envisioned authoritarian strategies.....you know like raising gas prices in the name of green to put us in buses and save the road for those who can buy there way on it? Or maybe we need to push the suburbanites into the city to improve city tax bases?Maybe force little farms to become corporate farms to feed the people better in the capitals.

 

[SIGSHR]

"Carefully vet".? What other rights are subject to "careful vetting" ?

 

[TXAZ]

Don’t forget it only takes 1 ill-willed Congressional staffer to add a “not”, “less than” or “local approval” words to subvert any legislation (that the congress doesn’t read before voting on)

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

AqB - the reason to post it as that it appeared in a fairly major modern political website and
what is the Internet except of having discussion. My caution is that the progun world might just respond with ridicule and not reasoned responses (like some we have seen here).

Too many times if a proposal has surface validity (as this may have to someone who is not in the choir), the gun world responds with rants and just ridicule.

That is not useful, even if it makes a denizen of the gun world feel "OH, BOY, WE TOLD THEM OFF"

If a legislature proposed this and your 'free state' or the Congress decided it was a good idea - might you want more that derision and cliches. Thus, discussing this particular proposal is worthwhile as we see in some of the reasoned responses. Or it is better just to have a Wayne rant?

 

[tony pasley]

" Shall not be infringed" the only limits should be my bank account.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Too many times if a proposal has surface validity (as this may have to someone who is not in the choir), the gun world responds with rants and just ridicule.

That is not useful, even if it makes a denizen of the gun world feel "OH, BOY, WE TOLD THEM OFF"

If a legislature proposed this and your 'free state' or the Congress decided it was a good idea - might you want more that derision and cliches. Thus, discussing this particular proposal is worthwhile as we see in some of the reasoned responses. Or it is better just to have a Wayne rant?

Valid points, Glenn. I dunno -- maybe I'm different from most other folks. (No, that's untrue -- I know I'm different from most other folks.) The way I might comment about such a proposal here, to other "members of the choir," is quite different from the way I would address it if writing to an elected representative to shoot holes in the proposal. In the latter instance, I would likely spend at least a couple of hours researching the history of the Second Amendment, unearthing quotations from the Founders regarding the sanctity of the RKBA, and doing my non-lawyerly best to dedge up court precedents that would (one hopes) demonstrate that this proposal does not pass constitutional muster.

I just don't have the time to do that level of research to discuss it among like-minded people. I do see the value of having someone do that, though, and that's why I appreciate comments from those who have more patience than I (especially Spats' informative post).

 

[44 AMP]

" Shall not be infringed" the only limits should be my bank account.

Should be. I agree. Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in anymore (if it ever was...)

Prior to 1934, the only Federal gun law decisions I am aware of had to do with whether or not (former) slaves had a legal right to arms. Turns out, they did...

In 1934, the Federal government restricted (not banned, restricted) ownership of full auto firearms, set min/max size restrictions on guns, and restricted "silencers" (any device intended to reduce the report of a firearm - whether it actually did, or not).

In 1968 the government added a huge list of new restrictions and outright prohibitions that had never existed before.

In 1986, a law that was intended to ease some of the most burdensome aspect of the 1968 law passed, but with an amendment that prohibited any new additions to the federal full auto registry. Essentially the number of full auto firearms legal for civilians to own was fixed at those the govt. already had in its registry.

Since then, every few years, the Fed government has added new gun laws and new restrictions. Background checks, assault weapon "bans", etc. Each and every time, we were told that the law would "fix" a certain problem. More recently, we're told the new law is a "needed first step".

The problem(s) we were told would be fixed by these laws have not been fixed. If you listen to the news, the problems have gotten WORSE!!!

Now here is a proposal for yet another law, to fix the same unfixed problems.

a popular saying these days is..
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting a different result.

People, we are THERE, now. Proposing yet another law, with the (at least implied) promise it will fix things isn't just foolish, or stupid, its barking CRAZY!!

 

[riffraff]

Quote from the article:


"There are a lot of important details to be worked out, like the status of pump-action and lever-action guns, or the specific requirements for getting a license and keeping it current, or due process requirements for restoring a revoked license"

My issue - personally I'd trust the state of NH I know and love today to come up with a fair reasonable way to do this. The federal government? I do not trust them to perform this task - look at how they implement NICS appeals for instance (complete lack of accountability and timeliness).

I also generally would be concerned this would be license to re-evaluate what constitutes a legal gun owner. That 25 year old DWI conviction you have might have been a violation and $75 fine at the time, but today it's a felony in some states barring gun ownership for life - how will the fed government treat that with such a permit?

One federal process I'm aware of is what it takes to hold a captains license (which I do not have since there's no need for me, but lots of those I fish with do). It includes judgement calls by the local CG regarding what background or health issues may disqualify a person (ie blood pressure medication even), entering a random drug testing program, as well as installments of various training requirements, paperwork, & fees to keep the license up.

My other issue is there is no end to the push for increased gun regulation - you can create such a permit that initially is designed to allow wide open gun ownership for those who meet the criteria, but that does not bar further regulations.

Compromise were made with background checks for all FFL transfers, now everyone assumes that is not up for debate, that it's a given, and they push for different restrictions - anti gun groups call this "progress" - I don't know what the end means for such people but I guarantee a widely-granted permit is not going to make them feel their work is done, they will continue to contest what guns we can own with the permit.

Maybe this guy is a hell of a gun owner and a hell of an American, but overall this idea just sounds like another half baked gun control idea. Sure potentially better than an AWB but so would a lot of things, it does not make them good ideas.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

"There are a lot of important details to be worked out, like the status of pump-action and lever-action guns, or the specific requirements for getting a license and keeping it current, or due process requirements for restoring a revoked license"

I think there are more than "details" to be worked out. When the proposal starts off by calling for licenses for semi-automatic firearms, and correctly defines semi-automatic firearms as those that automatically load the next round and cock the firearm for the next shot ... what details remain to be worked out regarding pump action and lever action firearms? By definition, they are not semi-automatic, so they would not be subject to the proposed licensing requirement.

You're facing a tough sell when you don't even understand what it is you're proposing. (Although it worked for Obamacare.)