So they want a federal gun licence do they?

N

Nightcrawler

New member
How about a law similar to this? I don't think the left would approve.

"The writers of this legislation wish to reaffirm that all Americans have a natural, inalienable right to self defense, and to that end, the Founders of this Nation wrote the Second Ammendment of the Constitution, to protect those rights.

To that end, the Federal Weapons License shall be given, without charge, to any citizen of the United States, 21 years of age or older, who has not been convicted of a violent crime or a felony.

All persons that are currently or have previously served with any branch or component of the Armed Forces of the United States, regardless of age, shall automatically be assumed to have a permit.

All persons that are currently or have previously sevred in any form of Law Enforcement shall also be automatically given said permit.

A military ID or police badge is the equivilent of having a Federal Weapons License.

Having a Federal Weapons License enables the citizen to purchase, keep, and own any type of firearm he or she chooses, regardless of make, model, action, capacity, or function, with the exception of explosives or explosive-tipped ammunition. Furthermore, having this permit allows the citizen to legally carry his/her weapon in his/her vehicle, anywhere in the United States and her territories. Whether the persons can carry a weapon outside of their vehicle shall be left to the several States.

This law shall not be interpreted in such a way as to allow the government to restrict or limit the ability of the American Citizen to purchase, keep, and, when necessary, use, a firearm for defense of person, property, or life. Furthermore, no fee shall ever be implimented on obtaining a Federal Weapons License, and said License is good for life once obtained, and may only be revoked if the citizen is convicted of a felony or a violent crime.

When a citizen applies for a Weapons License, the Licensing Agency may take no longer than five buisiness days to procces and issue the license. Once a citizen obtains the License, he/she may purchase as many firearms he/she chooses, and no gun registration or similar law shall be allowed. Once a citizen obtains a weapons permit, he/she is assumed to have passed all background checks, and therefore no additional background check or waiting period shall be implimented.

This law supercedes any previous federal or state gun control laws that contradict it. All state legislatures have agreed to this law (yeah right). Any and all other federal gun laws, including the Gun Control Act of 1934 and 1968, and any bans on weapons or ammunition that have been passed since are hereby repealed. (double yeah right!)

There. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm against just about any gun control measure you can think up. I just wrote this for fun. If this were implimented, the liberals would have thier federal licensing, and I could go buy that MP5 I'd like to have. Everybody wins! Of course, this would never, ever be implimented, and I suppose that is just as well. The liberals will never admit that a citizen has a right to use a gun to defend himself.


On a more serious note, let's look at the actual state of gun laws in America. Were're getting more every day. The gun laws are not "about right" as they are. There's too damned many of them. Guess what, Mr. Liberal? I LIKE shooting semiautomatic rifles. Guess what else? I like my 30 round magazines! Reloading after every 10 shots is a pain! But, according to people like this San Francisco PD Lieutenant I saw on the Learning Channel, people who want to own "non-sporting" guns like the SKS (I used to have one, bayonet and all!) are some kind of criminals or psychos. Are we losing the gun rights battle? I mean, really, are we losing? It certainly doesn't look like we're winning. Like I said, they pass more gun laws all the time, and they never get rid of the old ones. I guess my enjoyment of firearms is why I decided to get into law enforcement in the near future. That way, at least I can have a firearm. But I'd prefer that every law-abiding citizen be able to get one!
 
This would be a step (a rather large one) in the right direction.

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!

See The Legacy of Gun Control film at: www.cphv.com

Do it for the children...
 
We already have a licence to carry, it IS the second ammendment. Why should we have to get a licence that the government can come up with new laws making exceptions to, when we already have a RIGHT to own weapons. While the spirit of this sounds good, it would be yet another invasion of private right by the government. I want to see their hands get the hell off my guns totally and permanently.

------------------
The Alcove

I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
How 'bout this:

The government is not authorized to interfere in any way into my life (that means no licenses, no safety classes, no random searches, no friendly chats, no tests, no contact with me whatsoever) unless and until they have probable cause to believe that I have committed or am about to committ a crime.

------------------
"Anyone feel like saluting the flag which the strutting ATF and FBI gleefully raised over the smoldering crematorium of Waco, back in April of ‘93?" -Vin Suprynowicz
 
The US Constitution, Copyright 2000 by Al Gore,Warning!! All Rights Reserved By Federal Govt.
Any Attempt to Extercise any Constitutional Rights without express license
and payment of appropiate fees will incure severe fines and penitilies including incaracaration.

[This message has been edited by ernest2 (edited September 26, 2000).]
 
I like discussions like this, because they help clarify the debate.

The gun bigots argue that licensing and registration is 'sensible', and they just want to make sure that only the 'right' people have firearms. Your license would do that.

A similar alternative I have floated would put a box on your drivers license that says 'Gun', and then 'yes' or 'no' in the box, based upon how you would be judged on the 4473. And, this would be on everyone's driver's license. Everyone's. Mine. Yours. Sarah Brady's. Charlie Schumer's.


Of course, none of these approaches will be acceptable. Why? They will argue that we must be 'trained', and they must have proof of such training. Instead of providing incentives for training, they want to force the issue.

The real answer is that 'they' want to know exactly who has a firearm. 'We' will never accept that demand. And, it is over this line that the battle will be fought. The gun bigots argue that we shouldn't mind because 'no one is going to take your guns away' (in spite of short-term and long-term confiscation schemes in CA, NY and elsewhere). We know that registration has a long and nasty history of leading to confiscation eventually. The gun bigots don't care about that history, frankly, because they don't want a gun.

No compromise available on this one.

Regards from AZ
 
Dean,

You just dug your own grave. Your "unless" comment below gives them the power they need to break you in half. All they have to say is "he's a gun owner...he must be preparing to commit a crime...". Your too trusting. Do you think these JBT morons are going to conform to the intent of the rule? Sounds nice in theory, though.

Joel
________________________________________
...unless and until they have probable cause to believe that I have committed or am about to committ a crime.
 
"...Congress shall make no law..."

"...shall not be infrindged..."

ya ya ya...

I want a CCW license for my bic. :(

------------------
~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nightcrawler:

To that end, the Federal Weapons License shall be given, without charge, to any citizen of the United States, 21 years of age or older, who has not been convicted of a violent crime or a felony.[/quote]

One problem. The existing federal firearms licenses were once there to be had for the asking. They were, as usual, presented as nothing more than a formality, a way to make (legitimate) law enforcement easier, and they would be (and maybe even were) initially granted to any non-felon who applied for one--and who could object to that?

Fast-forward half a century and now they're all but impossible to get, and the BATF has gone out of its way to make them increasingly difficult to obtain or keep with the explicitly announced purpose of reducing the number of licensed dealers.

What on _earth_ makes you think your idea would fare any better? We're dealing with people who cannot be trusted, and whose values and ultimate goals are IRRECONCILABLE with ours. This is one reason why I fear that a violent conflict is inevitable (though not necessarily imminent).

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>All persons that are currently or have previously served with any branch or component of the Armed Forces of the United States, regardless of age, shall automatically be assumed to have a permit.

All persons that are currently or have previously sevred in any form of Law Enforcement shall also be automatically given said permit.

A military ID or police badge is the equivilent of having a Federal Weapons License.[/quote]

Hell no! They must be required to apply for (and be allowed to retain) a license under this law in EXACTLY the same way that John Q. Citizen must. NO exceptions. NO exemptions. No "hardship" loopholes "cause I'll lose my job if I can't get a license". Tough ****, pal. Guess you shouldn't be a cop/soldier if you're a felon, huh? (Or can't meet whatever nit-picking, bureaucratic rules are retroactively applied to the peasants.)


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
This law shall not be interpreted in such a way as to allow the government to restrict or limit the ability of the American Citizen to purchase, keep, and, when necessary, use, a firearm for defense of person, property, or life. Furthermore, no fee shall ever be implimented on obtaining a Federal Weapons License, and said License is good for life once obtained, and may only be revoked if the citizen is convicted of a felony or a violent crime.

When a citizen applies for a Weapons License, the Licensing Agency may take no longer than five buisiness days to procces and issue the license. Once a citizen obtains the License, he/she may purchase as many firearms he/she chooses, and no gun registration or similar law shall be allowed. Once a citizen obtains a weapons permit, he/she is assumed to have passed all background checks, and therefore no additional background check or waiting period shall be implimented.

This law supercedes any previous federal or state gun control laws that contradict it. All state legislatures have agreed to this law (yeah right). Any and all other federal gun laws, including the Gun Control Act of 1934 and 1968, and any bans on weapons or ammunition that have been passed since are hereby repealed. (double yeah right!)
[/quote]

All of which means absolutely nothing. If the traitors among us won't respect the limits of the Constitution and its Amendments, what makes you think they'll pay any more attention to a law _based_ on those documents? Especially, since they can always _change_ laws.
 
Metinks Dangus read the constitution of the
US.
As far as the license its unacceptable it would not create a large enough burde on the lower and middle class who still want to own guns.
Point: the handgun license Gore wants will be for every newgun and I think hes even said old ( to make certain they can track you down when your legislated a criminal, or is it to curb gun violence) ones you already own.
NOw the great benefit of this for the anti's is the slow paperwork and the cost.
Think of sevral guns you planned to buy or have recently bought now add $50.00 bucks to each one.
Glock goes from $550.00 to $600.00
(and we pay taxes on the license fee,LOL)
Ruger from $400.00 to $450.00.
This to a government where the republicans have repeatedly promised to make it smaller but if it gets in their many of them will vote for it.
(Dont get picky on my prices they were just examples)
And what happens if we do have many more gun death massacre's.
The media will have all kinds of spokesmen in place to be blaming congress for allowing
it by 'licensing people to kill' mostly the rightwingers ofcourse.
I recently spoke to a manager at a Lasertag arena the Store manager so Ill assume he gets a middle class salary.
He thought $350.00 was a big exspense for the
compact pistol he just bought by magnum research.
To people like this another 50 bucks would be a burden.


------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
Those with the power in the United States are criminals. Passing more laws to be inforced by these criminals is useless. Obeying the laws is pointless.

Because there is no law in this country... not anymore.
 
K.I.S.S. = Keep it Simple and Serious! ;)
We don't need no steenking licenses! We have the Second Amendment!

How ‘bout this...

- If you’re old enough to die for your country, you’re an adult. You can vote,
enter into contracts, carry weapons, etc.
- If you’re incarcerated, possession of a weapon adds ten years to your
sentence. USE of a weapon adds twenty. Deadly use (victim dies) is a
capital offense.
- If you’re confined for mental incompetence, you can not have a weapon so
long as you are confined.
- Felon or not - if you are “rehabilitated” enough to turn loose on society,
ALL citizens’ Rights are restored.
- Two-time losers (felons only) get double sentences, three-time losers (felons) get
life.

Members of an open society should have all the Rights of that society.

Felons and mental patients who are too dangerous to be in an open society
should not be IN that open society!

Warehouse them. Those who are able to work should be on road gangs to keep our roads, highways, parks, etc. neat and clean or on prison farms to raise their own food and reduce the cost of feeding them. Keep ‘em busy - too busy to get into continual mischief.

ANY prison guard who smuggles something in or out of the facility, joins the
inmates - automatic fifty year sentence.

Free up the Right of the Common Citizens to protect themselves, others, and
property from harm.

Law Enforcement would never have to stop someone to see if they're armed. Any free person would have the right to carry open or concealed. Period. And that includes in government buildings. If our "leaders" have nothing to hide - they have nothing to fear!
(Darn! THAT felt GOOD! :D )

Retreat from a criminal? Never!
Surrender to criminals? In their dreams....

By God, we might become a smaller society, but it would be a
polite society!

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited September 27, 2000).]
 
Nightcrawler's original post indirectly raises a question that has bothered me for some time: Why don't we have one or more national 2nd amendment group advocating repeal of gun laws as burdensome to law abiding citizens while doing nothing to limit crime? The NRA, GOA, etc. all seem to be reactive--trying to stop new restrictive laws. In doing so, however, they give away important high ground: why doesn't the U.S. government trust law abiding citizens to legally own the guns of his/her choice? Why isn't that trust reflected in our national laws? When NRA, etc. are always reactive, the debate focuses upon whether the new proposals are overly restrictive or burdensome and assumes that there is some valid reason to impose restrictions on (or distrust) law abiding citizens. Whether the government should demonstrate trust toward citizens never arises in the debates. My ancestors' weapons were as state of the art as any available to the military, and their sharpshooting skills honed in hunting were probably better than many soliders' of the day. In short, their skills were deadly if turned upon others or the government itself. Despite this, I find nothing in my ancestors' historical times to indicate that the government practiced anything other than trusting them with their weapons as long as they were law abiding (whether the trust was reluctantly done or not = ?). Today, I never see anything about the relationship of trust a government should have toward the law abiding citizens that form the core of the national identity. Even the gun organization's complaint that second amendment rights are being eroded misses the mark (though true). Today, the underlying theme of government distrust of its law abiding citizens is never held up to the light or made accountable. (Sorry about the length)
 
SWAMPY-when have you even read the fraggn
GOA website for newsletter (not email alerts)
their the only group Ive ever heard of proposing any gunlaw repeals and have proposed more pro-gun laws many that would overwrite current anti gunlaws than any group period.
Spend a few hours reading over their newsletters and glancing at their pro-gun post cards proposing pro-gun laws the NRA's never whispered like I did before I joined.
Problem is the NRA because they are so wimpy are given all the limelight by the media.
NO one's ever figured that this is is a fun
trick.
You see them you join them and beleive our lies that their fighting and we give them a few victories then weve tricked you into sending your money no where and you still think your actually involved and fighting.
GOA's the only ones whove blasted the 94 'aw gun ban' not to mentionally still outright calling the NICS (nra backed) system gun registration.
GOA wont back or even slightly promote Bush because he wants to pass yet more gunlaws.
You really should read more.
But I agree with your Idea.
Join GOA and support the repeal.
Project exile wonderfully serves to solidify every unconstitutional criminal safe making
gunlaw weve ever fought or as NRA members thought we were fighting.
It was Larry Pratt of GOA who once said
'We need project repeal not exile '

------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top