CATO Institute Sells Out RKBA

[Hawkmoon]

And that A) tells the .gov exactly who (legally) owns guns which simplifies eventual confiscation, and B) it's still giving the .gov a means to deny a civil right by just redefining who is eligible for the license.

A). Already exists.

B) is even more true of what we have now.

A) There are still many states in which it is possible (legally) to purchase firearms, even handguns, without any paperwork. I think such states are the majority, in fact.

B) How is the current system giving the .gov more data for use in a future confiscation than the proposal to require ALL transfers to be registered?

[Hawkmoon]

Scout, you solve those problems with legislation - just like NICS.  Government could always decide to do something bad but that's not a reason to resist sensible policy -  a government that wants to ban guns will.

The constitution has never stood for the proposition that all encumbrances on the exercise of a right are prohibited.  For example, you can't just wave the cinstitution at a polling booth and demand to vote with no id.

This would be a simple policy that could vastly improve the ease of you owning guns, and help stop nuts and criminals from getting them.

Taking your last point first, there is no way this would "improve the ease" with which people in most states can buy firearms. And it won't in any way stop criminals from getting them, because by definition they don't play by the rules.

As to the infringement argument: One of the moderators over at The Firing Line is a lawyer, and he keeps reminding me that the rights in the Bill of Rights are subject to reasonable regulation because ... well, because they have always been subject to reasonable regulation. That's what the argument (and justification) boils down to. What that argument ignores is the clear language of the Second Amendment: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That "shall not be infringed" phrase doesn't appear anywhere else in the Bill of Rights. As an example, take a look at the Fourth Amendment -- we are guaranteed by the 4th a right to be free from "unreasonable" searches and seizures. That automatically tells us that "reasonable" searches and seizures are legal, and it then properly falls to the courts to define the line between reasonable and unreasonable.

But the Second Amendment? "Shall not be infringed." What is a regulation if not an infringement? There is simply no other Constitutional right that states within itself that it is not subject to regulation, but that IS what the Second Amendment actually says. (Mr. Justice Scalia's dicta about "presumptively lawful regulations" notwithstanding.)

[MechAg94]

I think he is saying that you could walk into a gun store, show your gun owner license, pay your money, and walk out with a gun with no paperwork.  The only way I see that working is if the default status of everyone (including minors) is that they can buy a gun and the people who are prohibited (court action) get that status tagged on the govt issued ID's they get.  Otherwise, we are still registering gun owners, just not their guns.

However, when it comes down to it, what do we really gain by prohibiting felons from owning guns?  Does it really make us safer?  Or does it just give law enforcement another violation to charge them with later if they commit a crime?  I don't think I have seen a study that has looked at that.  

[Fitz]

in the minds of liberals, words mean whatever they WANT them to mean, instead of what they mean

[zxcvbob]

in the minds of liberals, words mean whatever they WANT them to mean, instead of what they mean

HumptyDumptyism.

[De Selby]

I think he is saying that you could walk into a gun store, show your gun owner license, pay your money, and walk out with a gun with no paperwork.  The only way I see that working is if the default status of everyone (including minors) is that they can buy a gun and the people who are prohibited (court action) get that status tagged on the govt issued ID's they get.  Otherwise, we are still registering gun owners, just not their guns.

However, when it comes down to it, what do we really gain by prohibiting felons from owning guns?  Does it really make us safer?  Or does it just give law enforcement another violation to charge them with later if they commit a crime?  I don't think I have seen a study that has looked at that.  

My point is that system we have now does both, but is t very good at stopping lunatics and criminals from getting guns.  So why not make it easier for us all to spot eligible gun owners, and get rid of the state by state patchwork of purchasing rules and records?

A single national licence that gets revoked if you offend is the idea.  We have the eligibility restrictions already - they just aren't very effective and amount to red tape.  A licensing system could improve that.

[Fitz]

My point is that system we have now does both, but is t very good at stopping lunatics and criminals from getting guns.  So why not make it easier for us all to spot eligible gun owners, and get rid of the state by state patchwork of purchasing rules and records?

A single national licence that gets revoked if you offend is the idea.  We have the eligibility restrictions already - they just aren't very effective and amount to red tape.  A licensing system could improve that.

I am not aware of too many instances where the feds took something over from the states and did a BETTER job of it...

Besides, they'd likely default to something emulating the more restrictive states. And those of us who can easily to F2F transfers and *expletive deleted*it don't want that.

[Hawkmoon]

My point is that system we have now does both, but is t very good at stopping lunatics and criminals from getting guns.  So why not make it easier for us all to spot eligible gun owners, and get rid of the state by state patchwork of purchasing rules and records?

A single national licence that gets revoked if you offend is the idea.  We have the eligibility restrictions already - they just aren't very effective and amount to red tape.  A licensing system could improve that.

To reiterate: Please explain why I should need a lcense to exercise what is supposed to be a constitutional right that cannot be infringed [i.e. regulated]?

[De Selby]

I am not aware of too many instances where the feds took something over from the states and did a BETTER job of it...

Besides, they'd likely default to something emulating the more restrictive states. And those of us who can easily to F2F transfers and *expletive deleted*it don't want that.

A more restrictive change isn't going to be politically feasible.  The advantage of this proposal is that there's a massive win for gun owners and a tangible increase in prevention of guns in the wrong hands.

The point of the licence isn't to create training or earning the right like with driving.  The point is to replace NICS with something that is available for anyone to check, and that's easier to manage than a criminal records search with every purchase.

Checking for a licence every time you convict or institutionalise someone can be built into police procedures, so that if a person becomes prohibited you can revoke the licence (or never issue one if the person later applies).

[De Selby]

To reiterate: Please explain why I should need a lcense to exercise what is supposed to be a constitutional right that cannot be infringed [i.e. regulated]?

It's really neither here nor there.  You already do need a licence in the form of approval from the Feds every single time you buy new, and all your second hand purchases are traceable with some effort.

In the meantime, getting on board with a regulatory improvement over what we have now doesn't stop you from daydreaming about no gun laws.

[Perd Hapley]

My point is that system we have now does both, but is t very good at stopping lunatics and criminals from getting guns.  So why not make it easier for us all to spot eligible gun owners, and get rid of the state by state patchwork of purchasing rules and records?

A single national licence that gets revoked if you offend is the idea.  We have the eligibility restrictions already - they just aren't very effective and amount to red tape.  A licensing system could improve that.

Oh, well at least that system wouldn't most certainly be abused.

[De Selby]

Oh, well at least that system wouldn't most certainly be abused.

It's not any more prone to abuse than what we have now

[freakazoid]

It's really neither here nor there.  You already do need a licence in the form of approval from the Feds every single time you buy new, and all your second hand purchases are traceable with some effort.

In the meantime, getting on board with a regulatory improvement over what we have now doesn't stop you from daydreaming about no gun laws.

It actually is. Yes, we already know that our constitutional rights are being violated, but why should I need a license to exercise what is supposed to be a constitutional right that cannot be infringed?

[De Selby]

It actually is. Yes, we already know that our constitutional rights are being violated, but why should I need a license to exercise what is supposed to be a constitutional right that cannot be infringed?

Great question - how is it any more applicable to the licensing plan than to what you have right now?

[Hawkmoon]

It's really neither here nor there.  You already do need a licence in the form of approval from the Feds every single time you buy new, and all your second hand purchases are traceable with some effort.

In most states, this applies only to handguns, not long guns. And a second-hand purchase, even of a handgun, is not traceable in most states if you don't provide personal information to the seller, whom you meet at his house or in the American Legion parking lot.

In the meantime, getting on board with a regulatory improvement over what we have now doesn't stop you from daydreaming about no gun laws.

But your proposal doesn't represent an improvement over the existing regulatory scheme for people in the vast majority of the states. That's what you don't seem to understand.

[Fitz]

That's odd. Only one of my handguns has required me to do that

The rest haven't.  They were bought private party

Which is my point. I'm already subject to some infringements. 

I don't want the federal government forcing a California style system on me.

And the "it's already infringed why not let the Feds institute licensing" is silly

We should be fighting to roll back existing infringements not agreeing to more

Also, what evidence do you have that it'll help crime to let the Feds dip their dicks into gun licensing?

[MechAg94]

Great question - how is it any more applicable to the licensing plan than to what you have right now?

Why do you assume we like what we have now?  I don't want NICS checks.  I don't want licensing or any requirement to ask a govt entity permission to buy a gun.  You need to get it screwed into your head that NONE of these regulatory schemes stop criminals and crazies from getting guns.  None of the mass shooters in recent years were stopped by the existing regulatory schemes and none of your proposals would do that either. 

[MechAg94]

I can only assume that you think we are all stupid or something.  That all you have to do is think of some new regulatory scheme that is theoretically simpler and we will all just jump on the bandwagon.  It doesn't take a genius to know that what we would get it another Obamacare.  The lawmakers are honestly trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies.  That is NOT their goal. 

[Scout26]

My point is that system we have now does both, but is t very good at stopping lunatics and criminals from getting guns.  So why not make it easier for us all to spot eligible gun owners, and get rid of the state by state patchwork of purchasing rules and records?

A single national licence that gets revoked if you offend is the idea.  We have the eligibility restrictions already - they just aren't very effective and amount to red tape.  A licensing system could improve that.

What you are proposing already exists in Illinois.  If your idea is so great and wonderful, please explain Chicago.

http://heyjackass.com/  (while the website name is somewhat appropriate, it is actually all about shootings and murders in Chicago, very much worth a perusal.)

[lee n. field]

My point is that system we have now does both, but is t very good at stopping lunatics and criminals from getting guns.

And that.   Really?

[Balog]

And that.   Really?

I'm pretty sure the "is t" was meant to be "isn't" which we can all agree with.

[Hawkmoon]

And the "it's already infringed why not let the Feds institute licensing" is silly

We should be fighting to roll back existing infringements not agreeing to more

QUOTED FOR TRUTH!

[Balog]

There is room for compromise.  

I have heard it said there are something like 20,000 gun laws.  I would be okay with only getting rid of half of them (this year).  

There'd still be hordes of people yelling about what an evil compromiser you are because you didn't get rid of all of them right now.

The more people that own and love guns, the safer the RKBA in America is. The biggest impediment to more people owning guns is the hassle necessary to buying online. Think about it, if you had to get get a copy of your library's Federal Book License, then forward that to Amazon, then get it shipped to the library, then wait until you could get there during normal business hours, then pay a fee and fill out a bunch of paperwork and wait around before you could get your book then the online book industry would be a non-starter.

If they legitimately repealed all other federal gun laws and simply said "Take a one time test to prove you're minimally competent, then you get a non-expiring gun license" and we could buy guns/SBR/SBS/MGs/suppressors cheap online and then get them shipped to your house that would be the best possible thing that could happen to the RKBA in America. Would no license of any sort be better? Meh, probably. But given that almost everyone has a driver's license and views it as acceptable, the chances of avoiding any restrictions at all any time in the near future are slim to none. Of course the possibility of actually implementing the license scheme is almost none as well, but we are discussing it in principle not as a "Should we vote for bill X" thing.

"But but but that means I'm on a LIST!!!!" Guess what sugar cup, unless you're living in a Unabomber shack in the woods with no electricity, the feds know you own guns already.

And the "it's already infringed why not let the Feds institute licensing" is silly

We should be fighting to roll back existing infringements not agreeing to more

All states should be Constitutional carry. But if a state moves from May Issue to Shall Issue on their CCW, is that "agreeing to more infringement" or is that "accepting some infringement, but making things overall better"?

[Fitz]

Good job ignoring the rest of my post

Do you think if there was a national system set up at the federal level that it would be more or less restrictive than what I deal with now

[MechAg94]

Balog, I agree that it could, possibly, maybe, hopefully be a better system if it was done right. ......................And Communism would work real well if only the right people were in charge. 

If we could replace all the current federal gun laws and replace them with a new simple system, that would be great.  I just don't think anything approaching that is likely to make it through Congress in this day and age.  It might start out as a good bill, but by the time it passed, it would be a mess and likely worse than current laws.  No regulation is a better outcome than what would likely occur.