Stop background checks on weapons; LICENSE the purchaser

[Avogadro]

For the sake of spirited discussion. I rarely have an original idea so I am sure this has been brought-up before. With the perspective that the right to bear arms is protected, and should be extended to all who's rights remain intact. Why is there not a solid background evaluation and licensing of individuals? Once licensed, one may purchase whatever, and however many of whatever the person wants (etc…). Renew one's license every two or five years. Should you loose you'r license, you loose you'r right to bear arms (like a felon for example). Do away with a background check on each and every sale. The presentation of a license to purchase should be enough for a sale.

I am hoping for a good discussion, please don't disappoint.

Avogadro.

Read More

 

[Jim Colvill]

While that may sound prima facie an acceptable idea it would only be another level of tracking, bureaucracy and, most importantly, a source of more cash for the state taken out of your pocket. Besides, isn't that what an FOID is?

 

[OutlawHoss]

My 'license' to buy a firearm has existed since 1776: "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed . . ."
That may be a disappointing answer for your discussion, but I'm jumping to the end of another civics lesson on how 'inalienable rights' work, and how there are so many laws that already diminish that right; as well as how much a falsehood it is think yet more laws will change people's behavior. There just is nothing left for some 'compromise' to appease the anti-gun wing nuts.

 

[scrandall01215]

We shouldn't need any background checks or license!
It's pretty simple "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" it can't be said any simpler!!!!!
Stacy

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Your CHL already serves as a NICS check in 25 states.

 

[OutlawHoss]

For the sake of spirited discussion. I rarely have an original idea so I am sure this has been brought-up before. With the perspective that the right to bear arms is protected, and should be extended to all who's rights remain intact. Why is there not a solid background evaluation and licensing of individuals? Once licensed, one may purchase whatever, and however many of whatever the person wants (etc…). Renew one's license every two or five years. Should you loose you'r license, you loose you'r right to bear arms (like a felon for example). Do away with a background check on each and every sale. The presentation of a license to purchase should be enough for a sale.

I am hoping for a good discussion, please don't disappoint.

Avogadro.

And, it's not an original idea. Some states require a prior license to purchase a firearm, this is the FOID Qaolin mentions. Massachusetts New Jersey, and Illinois: have these states enjoyed some magical decrease in 'gun violence' ? Just the opposite.
STATES THAT REQUIRE A PERMIT OR OTHER CREDENTIAL TO BUY LONG GUNS (https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0101.htm)

Maybe it's time to redefine 'gun violence': violence that occurs when criminals and terrorists kill Americans who have been disarmed by their government.

 

[Ura-Ki]

While the OP's ideas may seem logical, and I would actually agree, fundementally we still have a problem. Even a CHL, which should make the BGC un needed has not solved any thing! I agree that removing ALL restrictions could work, it would have to be the only LAW that would be in place! Restore all 2nd rights,to include concealed or open carry, re move ALL gun laws at all levels, both State, AND Fed, and then we MIGHT have something! Attach it to your drivers licence, WITH NO RESTRICTONS, and maybe! It would have to have very strict laws attached, NO serial numbers, No descriptions, or caliber, no limits on how many rounds it holds or if it has a switch, a can, a short barrel, ANY thing! The sole perp would be a felon banned from ownership, noting more! I could accept that ONLY if it were the only infringment, with no challenge to the 2nd ever again! If the Anti's were to accept those terms with out any additions, MAYBE!

 

[mrblond]

Remember guys, we can come up with every type of idea that may or may not work, it will not matter. The left wants a total ban on guns.

 

[albin25]

Too easy for the government to create whole new "risky" categories of citizens that can't get or keep that license because of subsequent additional "common sense" requirements being added after the fact...

revocation if:
related to a felon, you need to take care of parents who become mentally deficient, live in high crime area, unpaid parking tickets, use handicapped parking, a felon lives in your apt bldg., in arrears on taxes, frequent foreign travel, have the wrong prescriptions, diabetic, on welfare, children in your home, drive a cab, tend bar, work in a school, can't afford the latest license cost increase, can't afford the new insurance requirement, bought too much ammo the previous year, can't afford how or where they want you to store them... and on and on and on and on.

It's what governments do, they're relentless, they have the means to back it up by force if necessary, and have no qualms about using that force.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Thats why in creating that law, specific limits need be set, what it CAN do, and what it CANNOT do! What it empowers, and what it Limits! Who administers it, what power they have, what limits they have, and language specifically stating no other infring from any outside that limit! You would have to set ALL aspects of said law before it could be accepted! We would also have to take up the challenges of the other things out side the 2nd, how a person gets on a list,who has access to that list, what limits the State and Fed have.

 

[Avogadro]

Excellent points!
I was not aware of "FOID" laws, learned something today. Cant prices go up on background checks for each and every purchase? Cant the Left wing apply a series of unobtainable restrictions that albin25 lists? In fact, aren't they doing just that one little bit at a time? I am not aware of so many failed attempts to create the perfect set of gun laws, and would really like to see these made more public.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Stick around Avogadro! Plenty to learn, I do!

 

[bolus]

I agree that being a US citizen is the qualification. Then if prove yourself an poor citizen for doing stuff like violent crime you loose your rights.

Like one of my old teachers used to say, "everyone starts the class with an "A". what you do determines your final grade."

Personally, I'd like to see people demonstrate some level of competency before being able to reproduce (*cough* all my inlaws *cough) but imagine the government getting to decide who gets to reproduce.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Agreed! I don't think the Gub'ment should have any say! Like you say, you start out golden, and what you do after set your limits! Defining those is key, and who defines them! It can be done, if we all set it in motion and we take a part in creating it, but thats where we have to pull together!

 

[OutlawHoss]

I agree that being a US citizen is the qualification. Then if prove yourself an poor citizen for doing stuff like violent crime you loose your rights.

Like one of my old teachers used to say, "everyone starts the class with an "A". what you do determines your final grade."

Personally, I'd like to see people demonstrate some level of competency before being able to reproduce (*cough* all my inlaws *cough) but imagine the government getting to decide who gets to reproduce.

America nearly went that route with the Eugenics movement of 'racial hygiene.' It obviously spread into some totalitarian regimes, Nazi Germany, USSR, where it morphed into larger state policies. Sweden went nuts for it and in fact, didn't stop the program until the early 1970's.
I do get what you're saying as tongue-in-cheek though, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to show how progressive liberalism has tried to homogenize society by ideological force for some time now.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Still happens, just isn't made public!

 

[slimmer13]

I've posted in numerous threads how I feel about the entire concept of prohibited persons, but we have them and since they aren't going away anytime soon, I remember hearing an idea that wouldn't be too horrible.

Everyone has a firearm endorsement on their state issued ID. If you get convicted of a disqualifying offense or are adjudicated mentally incompetent, it gets punched. No huge bureaucracy, no registration concerns, just a quick flash of your ID and be on your way. They could enforce it the same way the liqueur control board does. Send in people with punched ID and criminal charges and fines for clerks that don't comply.

But that would be simple and like mr blonde said, not what they want. It's not about keeping prohibited persons from getting guns. It's about getting them out of the rest of our hands.

 

[erudne]

READ THE SECOND AMENDMENT !

 

[Gunfinish]

Your CHL already serves as a NICS check in 25 states.

Yes, Box #23 on the 4473. No call in for an NTS number. Just fill out the Form 4473 including #23, and you're on your way.
HOWEVER... Many FFL's will still call in for an NTS number because they fear the ATF and the entire system, and who can blame them!

 

[Gunfinish]

It's not about keeping prohibited persons from getting guns. It's about getting them out of the rest of our hands.

YeP! And if somebody doesn't really believe that, have them bone up on what has, and is happening in California.