The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 28, 2018, 11:03 AM   #1
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
Gun nuts proposal for gun control

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...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:

Quote:
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.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old April 28, 2018, 11:19 AM   #2
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,863
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.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Read my blog!
"The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!"
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old April 28, 2018, 11:37 AM   #3
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
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.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old April 28, 2018, 12:18 PM   #4
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
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....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 28, 2018, 12:43 PM   #5
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,289
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.)

Last edited by DaleA; April 28, 2018 at 12:48 PM.
DaleA is offline  
Old April 28, 2018, 01:20 PM   #6
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
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.
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth
zxcvbob is offline  
Old April 28, 2018, 01:32 PM   #7
Danoobie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2017
Posts: 351
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?

Last edited by Danoobie; April 28, 2018 at 01:44 PM.
Danoobie is offline  
Old April 28, 2018, 02:55 PM   #8
Minorcan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2015
Posts: 379
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.
Minorcan is offline  
Old April 28, 2018, 04:35 PM   #9
Nathan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 6,285
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.
Nathan is offline  
Old April 28, 2018, 04:44 PM   #10
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 28, 2018, 05:46 PM   #11
Evan Thomas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
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...
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry.
Evan Thomas is offline  
Old April 28, 2018, 07:25 PM   #12
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
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."
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 28, 2018, 09:00 PM   #13
turkeestalker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
Quote:
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!
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter!
turkeestalker is offline  
Old April 28, 2018, 09:14 PM   #14
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
The punchline of this gun control scheme is...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stokes
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,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stokes
Sorry, friend, but you lost all credibility on that score when you backed...
...a federal license for activity protected in the BOR.
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 28, 2018, 09:17 PM   #15
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 28, 2018, 09:19 PM   #16
JERRYS.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,968
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.
JERRYS. is offline  
Old April 28, 2018, 10:28 PM   #17
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
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.

Quote:
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."
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 28, 2018, 10:32 PM   #18
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
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.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old April 28, 2018, 10:36 PM   #19
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 28, 2018, 11:26 PM   #20
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
Quote:
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.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 29, 2018, 02:59 AM   #21
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,295
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.
armoredman is offline  
Old April 29, 2018, 04:23 AM   #22
turkeestalker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
Quote:
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.
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter!
turkeestalker is offline  
Old April 29, 2018, 06:41 AM   #23
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
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,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
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.
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 29, 2018, 07:52 AM   #24
kozak6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2005
Location: AZ
Posts: 3,113
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.
kozak6 is offline  
Old April 29, 2018, 08:11 AM   #25
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,817
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stokes
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 . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stokes
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.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.18090 seconds with 8 queries