License or Permit?

O

othermarc

New member
I am curious about what other gun owners think. I feel that the ownership of Handguns should be more like a Driver's License rather than a permit. My reason is this, I have come across so many gun owners that are unsafe and unknowledgeable about firearms. This frightens me. I feel that a gun owner should demonstrate his/her ability to fire a gun of a calibre they intend to own at a "man" sized target from say, 20 feet, and thus "qualify" to purchase guns of that calibre. In my little dream world, this would take the place of all previous federal, state, and local levels, abolishing all bans and silly capacity laws.
Please share your pros and cons with me.

------------------
Live Free or Die
 
Although I feel that safety corses and learning how to shoot is important, the problem I have with having either a license or a permit is:

1. If they give it to you they can take it away.
2. Who is to determine who has passed or what? When ever you give this power to one individual you invite coruption. The way that you see something may be completely different from the way that I see it. We may disagree. Who is to say who is right and who is wrong. When you have a permit or a license system, you are in effect giving someone the power to make that decision.

Richard
 
"... shall not be infringed."

Problem for us: We see both sides of the issue. In days of yore, personal integrity (an ancient and fading concept) combined with personal need (feed & defend ourselves and families) induced everyone to be proficient with weapons. Now, it seems to be only a hobby, even for some LEOs!

Maybe Jim March's concept of universal military service is the answer.

I see the problem. I fear government intervention. I have no solution.
 
If you can figure out some way to prevent such a system from being abused either now or in the future, I'm all for it.

BUT, if abused it will disarm ordinary folks while doing nothing to control criminals. A small number of accidental discharges is FAR less harmful than criminals or tyrants being the only ones armed.

I don't mean "more harmful in theory", I mean in terms of actual bodycounts.

Jim March
 
othermarc: I agree with you. Although an individual has the right to bear arms, with this right comes a responsibility to behave prudently. I believe that the U.S. is in such a state of social decay that the criminal use of firearms cannot be dismissed by merely throwing all miscreants in jail. This move as sole response to the problem does not save us from a duty to prevent violence and the conditions that engender it.

Of course, education and training through private organizations is essential, but government has a role to play too. I assert this role can be realized without infringing upon one's right were more gunowners to promote openly the safe use of firearms and not be pushed into a position of "us versus them" when it comes to firearm issues.
Naturally, all solutions cannot be offered here, but I would like to see pro-gun activists behaving in a less reactionary manner. Yes, I am guilty of such behavior myself because the last 5 years have been hard on us. Nevertheless, character counts and may be the only thing that eventually persuades the undecided middle to support the right to bear arms.
 
One only need spend some time in a gun shop, at a range or gun show to witness the crying need for education and training. The general public''s firearm safety awareness/practice is mediocre and apalling. While I'm with you in principle, inflicting gov't BS on people over a fundamental right scares the cr@p out of me. Sometimes you have to swallow hard, pay attention and stay away from the obvious wankers, hope for the best, and let natural selection work (this is only a half-facetious comment). I guess I trust the public more than the gov't, overall.

Stay safe, M2
 
The answer to your training question is in the 1792 Militia Act. wherein everyone capible of shootin, was required to have one and to train on a regular basis. Congress does have power over the Milita, which is just about everyone in the U.S. Between 17 and 45. If their concern is safty then why don't they require everyone to registar and to show up for drill and practice.

To much of your time spend away? Hey if I can get some free ammo to waste then I'm all for it.

But as far as giving someone the power over me to deceide if I can or can not own a gun... forget it.

Richard
 
On the surface, a good idea. The rub comes when "they" make the decisions. Yes, it'd probably decrease the risk - as always, at some loss of freedom. It depends on what you value more... Freedom is now and has always been a risky business.

------------------
Shoot carefully... swifter...
 
Bookie, you are 100% correct. I did not know about that 1792 act, but it drives home a VERY important point. The government should not create bans and what not to control violent crimes, they should educate. Education is the only viable solution to most societal problems, whether it be AIDS, drugs, or even recycling. Instead of wasting time and money on laws that only hurt the law abiding citizen, they should mandate firearms education to all citizens, pro or anti. I have brought several friends who were anti-gun to the range, and through education they have overcome irrational fears, and some even enjoy shooting now.
I have enjoyed all of your responses, thank you.
 
Hiya Marc! Nice question buddy. Not enough americans are considering the permit/license option. It seems people are largely uninformed and see the issue as gun/no gun. Even the NYS hunter's safety course I took would be a step in the right direction for most folks. Texas has a good system for CCW qualification.

------------------
-Live free or die
www.acs.brockport.edu/~jg5708/gunclub.htm
 
A license and a permit are the same thing. The real distinction is between a right and a privilege. Driving is a privilege that is treated like a right; bearing arms is a right that is treated like a privilege.

See my posting "Constitution grants no rights" further down in this thread for a few thoughts.
 
I agree with Jim Keenan on this one.

What is the matter with the Vermont system? I trust my neighbors judgment with firearms far more than I trust the federal government's judgment in deciding who wil be 'allowed' or 'permitted' to have a gun. As far as driver's licenses go, why is it that some idiot tries to kill me each and every time I drive a car? And these folks have passed at least one driving test...

IMHO, any system other than a Vermont-style is unconstitutional and morally wrong.

Should people be educated in gun handling? Of course. The question is, do you want government to decide what constitutes sufficient training?

And never forget, only the good guys will comply with any law, criminals break them all.

------------------
"The only good bureaucrat is one with pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's goodbye to the Bill of Rights." H.L. Mencken
 
Interesting little side note:
Today I went to renew my drivers license. The Tennessee Department of Saftey is also the state agency which issues handgun permits. In fact both licenses are issued in the same building and made with the same equiptment. Big sign on the front door, you guessed it, NO FIREARMS ALLOWED IN BUILDING.
Makes you wonder don't it?
 
Never a license and never a permit, even though I put up with the CCW licensing in my own state. As stated before this gives someone the power to take it away, especially if they are corrupt or stupid. I think a better approach might be to offer a n incentive to take safety courses. States could offer to issue a card that would exempt guns owners from paying sales tax on ammunition and firearms or membership in state run ranges, etc. The Federal govenment could offer a tax rebate equal to double the cost of firearms safety training. I also would not mind a system that would allow a certain amount of safety training, shown proficiency and pre-background check to result in a good guy card that would entitle the bearer to purchase firearms with ZERO federal paperwork or the ability to have, without a tax,local approval, etc., class III weapons. My 2 cents :)
 
While the ideas posted all make sense, as far as training goes, one thing has not been addressed. It would have to be nationwide, and guess who would administer it? Right BATF. This would give them a list of all gun owners, and we all know what would happen next, don't we? Just a point to ponder.
Paul B.
 
All of this feedback is great. From what I've read, most people do not want government intervention on the issue, for a fear that the government will abuse power. I can see that point. However, I am sure that we all realize that in this country, at least right now, that is about the farthest from reality we will ever get.
What has me particularly perturbed right now is the piecemeal system across the country. I just got my "City" permit (where I can't legally drive to a range to practice, and there is not a single range in my City) and have to wait another month or so to get my statewide permit. Despite that, most of my friends that I shoot with, live in another state, one of the worst, New York. SO Ican't even go shooting with my buddies when I want, since NY says you can't drive through the state with a pistol locked up in your trunk, no ammo anywhere, unless you have certification you are on your way to certified NRA competition. There seems to be a violation of Interstate law there somewhere, but I rather not risk trying to explain my rights to a NYS Trooper.
Anywho, After reading these comments, a perfect America would have little or no regulation of guns, except a way to determine who is a "good" guy, and who is bad (perhaps like Vermont) and would offer FREE training to all gun owners, in safety and marksmanship. I like that idea a lot. Now to convince the rest of America that tax dollars are better spent on safety training, education, and prosecution of actual criminals, rather than banning or enforcing other stupid gun control laws....

------------------
Live Free or Die
 
You can't legislate stupidity. If someone handles a gun unsafely, sooner or later they'll have an accidental discharge and then you sue them for everything they've ever earned and everything they ever will.

In the meantime, I resent my civil rights becoming a privilege because some other guy can't handle a gun safely.
This country has all the laws and regulations it needs. One more will not help.



------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
"...shall not be infringed."

The more I read everybody's thoughts, the more I begin to believe mandatory military training is the answer.

- If every person had to give one year to learning military discipline, military and civil law, safe firearms handling and skills, basic first aid, and (fill in the rest as you please), I believe we would have a nation of better trained, more responsible citizens.

- Upon completion of the one year obligation, there would be no registration required for firearms, ammunition, or owners.

- Let market forces control gun and ammo prices (complying with Haz-Mat policies).

- We already have laws which cover assault, battery, use of force and deadly force. No new laws would be required in that area.

- Make it a federal law that firearms must be stored (when not in use) in a manner to provide a given level of protection against unauthorized users (eg. children, thieves, etc.)

- Stay completely out of the "concealed v. open carry" controversy. Prohibit only former or indicted felons from carrying outside their homes. (Keep the BGs in jail.)

- Can you imagine our country with everyone trained in firearms safety and usage? Even the handicapped (as able)?

- If the training were done well, it sure could knock down many barriers between minorities, majorities, etc....; perhaps even between the government and "We the People"!
-------------------
This is my first shot at this, so be gentle - it's only an idea. However, I think the only "infringement" on our RKBA should be a requirement for a modicum of skill and personal responsibility. Such training could answer that problem and also give youngsters the opportunity to learn some discipline and mix with people from different areas, social levels, handicapped, etc. Gee, maybe we could become "non-hyphenated" Americans.

Whatcha think?

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited April 08, 1999).]
 
The history of the military draft in the U.S. would make an entire thread in and of itself. It has been tried on and off since the Civil War and each time came to a halt because of near universal complaint from the citizenry. Even the Army has little use for it. For evidence of this assertion, see their official history in which they pride themselves on a tradition of volunteerism.

The lastest wrinkle though has been a call for mandatory service for 18-21 year olds, be it military, law enforcement, or social work. My response to this idea is we already serve by paying high taxes. Why isn't that expense enough for a bumbling bureaucracy run by a corrupt political elite?

Finally, I take issue with the notion that firearms training and development comes out of a military milieu (and thus primarily belongs there). Almost every significant firearms development or technique in American history has originated in a civilian gun culture. From the colonial Kentucky rifle to the modern Stoner rifle, from Sam Colt to Jeff Cooper, from Southern sharpshooters during the Civil War to current long range marksman in Nevada creating and testing shoulder weapons for the .50 BMG caliber, innovation in American firearms has been a civilian enterprise.

It is only after these developments have been perfected in the civilian gun culture that military or law enforcement appropriate the results for their own use. Hence, it is not hard to imagine that a threat to the civilian gun culture is a threat to firearm innovation in America and thus U.S. strength. One only need regard the history firearm development in France to see what happens when it is left to government enterprise; this is why the French now merely buy licenses to reproduce foreign manufacturer's technologies.

Yes, I digress, but there it is.
 
Dennis,
I've always considered my time in the Army as a turning point in my life. Where else can an eighteen year old go to learn responsablity, disapline and teamwork while being free enough to make their own decisions about their personal life. All the while knowing you've got three hots and a cot no matter how bad you mess up or how broke you get. I think military service is a good way for young people learn about the real world before they are forced to sink or swim on their own.
But REQUIRED service? Nope, if you force it on them they will fight it from day one. Just cause more problems than its worth. Also one year isn't practical. By the time a new troop gets through basic and A.I.T., there really won't be enough time left to make the cost of the training worthwhile. Two years would be more practical.
Best to leave the military all volunteer. At least you know they chose to be there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top