I’ve heard a lot of discussion lately and the pro gun contingent around here all seem to think Al Gore’s gun licensing proposal is an infringement on their rights as gun owners. Frankly, I don’t get it. It seems like a pretty reasonable proposal and I would think people wanting to buy guns for legitimate purposes would be all for it.
Now most of the flack was from people who thought it was gun registration, so I had to explain to them that it was not about registration at all. It’s just a photo licensing system, similar to driver’s licenses, that let’s you take care of the background check in advance. It seems to me that, once you have your license, it’s easier to buy guns whenever you want and not have to repeat the extensive background checks.
However, many folks, in spite of knowing the difference between registration and licensing, felt it was a bad idea. Unfortunately, none of the people I talked to could articulate anything other than, “If NRA thinks it’s a bad idea, it must be a bad idea”.
I’m not trying to start YAGD (Yet Another Gun Debate) I just want to know, what are the potential pitfalls and worries that pro gun folks have with Gore’s proposal? Why does the NRA think it’s a bad idea?
A lot of the negative reaction to a proposal like that is when a person considers what it will do regarding the criminal use of guns. There are numerous and various gun laws on the books, yet criminals that shouldn’t have them still get them and use them. It is tough to see how laws like licensing will deter criminals or the criminally minded from using a gun when they are alreaddy breaking laws.
I personally am all for the idea of enforcing the laws we have and seeing how that does the trick. No matter the rules, there will always be rule breakers. That holds true for the minor things in life and it will hold true for major law breaking also.
A lot of people (including myself just so you are aware of my potential bias in this post) think Gore is looking to jump on the heartstrings of undecided female voters by proposing yet more rules and regulations that won’t be uniformly enforced and won’t really do anything to deter a criminal from breaking a law.
One advantage is that when criminals are caught with a gun and it’s not licensed, that one more charge you can pin against them.
It’s sort of like drug dealers not declaring ill-gotten money on their 1040’s. If the prosecuter can prove it, you can charge them with tax evasion as well as drug trafficing.
Slight hijack
I once worked in the same building as NRA headquarters. I lucked out and never saw any protests. But they did have a gun museum (good tour on a lunch hour), a gun range in the basement, and a pretty decent cafe.
I agree with Mullinator, the existing laws are not being enforced as they could be.
HCI makes a big deal about the success of the Brady Bill and all the folks that have had their purchases denied. Yet we don’t hear a corresponding gloat from Janet Reno about their prosecution for violating the law by trying to purchase a firearm when they are forbidden from doing so.
I think a lot of the objection comes from the fact that requiring lawful gun owners to have a license will do nothing to solve the problem, which is criminals getting illegal guns.
It comes down to the all-gun-laws-only-affect-law-abiding-citizens reality, which is why I am against most gun laws. I do support mandatory safety testing as a requirement to get guns, but more important is the strict enforcement of laws preventing convicted felons / crazy people / children from acquiring guns in the first place.
The others have basically summed it up. Whatever you might think of the NRA, you have to admit that they’ve got one thing right: gun laws do not take guns away from ciminals, only people who are already law-abiding citizens.
I’ve worked in the criminal justice system (admitedly briefly) and I can tell you that in this big city (Milwaukee) prosecuters simply do not stack on charges like that. For instance, a man wearing a bullet proof vest walks into a store, pulls a gun out of his pocket, points it at the clerk, demands money, takes the money, runs out and is captured by the police who discover he is drunk. He could be charged with a multitude of things including wearing body armor during the commission of a crime (5 years), carrying a concealed weapon (9 months),intoxicated use of a weapon (2 years), pointing a dangerous weapon (2 years), felon in possession of a weapon (5 years), and armed robbery(20 years). The d.a. will just charge the robbery and that’s it. It sounds dumb, but that’s all they’ll do. So another offense is just something else that won’t be charged.
One big thing I object to is Gores proposal to ban “cheap unsafe handguns”. That is a bullshit statement! What exact guns is he talking about? All guns are unsafe if you find yourself staring down the business end of it! Does he mean the inexpensive guns made by Jennings or Davis Arms Co.?
I’ve had some of those guns (As a side business I own a small gun store in Wisconsin) and I can tell you they do their intended purpose just fine. Does he mean to say a handgun is no good unless it cost so much that only the elite (and criminals) can afford it? I have a question I’d like to ask all candidates:
If congress passed a total ban on civillian possession of any and all handguns, WOULD YOU SIGN IT!!
Re the aids saying GW has allowed folks in Texas to carry guns in church et al. The law as signed allows these places to decide for themselves to allow permit holders to carry or not. I’m not really concerned if someone who has made the effort to get a carry permit is sitting in the pew behind me with a handgun.
At the risk of starting a debate, let me add my two cents…
As others have pointed out, we would be spending millions of tax dollars creating a system that monitors (and inconveniences) law-abiding gun owners while ignoring criminals.
But there is another, deeper reason why I am opposed to it, and it’s this: We do not need the government’s permission to buy, sell, carry, transport, or use any firearm. And a permit system is just that - permission. Likewise, I do not need the government’s permission to practice religion, print a newspaper, own land, or peacefully assemble.
The right to keep and bear arms is an inherent, inalienable right. It does not depend on government for its existence. You do not need the government’s permission to exercise this right. You must not forget: You are the master, the government is the servant.
Another way to put it is that you are a sovereign being, and the government is a contractor you have hired to perform certain duties for you. One of these duties is to protect your inalienable rights. Instead, our government has violated our contract and done just the opposite: It is forcefully taking our rights away. Guess Jefferson was right after all…
I agree with the above statements but I do not think they address the specific question originally asked. I think the answer is that licensing would give the government a list of everyone with a gun so when guns are outlawed the government could just go around collecting guns from everyone on the list. It seems farfetched given the current political climate but that could change as it has in other countries.
The above is directly from Al Gore’s own website. You may read his full gun control proposals at the link provided.
The problem with this proposal is right there in the second line. You will not be able to purchase a handgun unless the federal government thinks you’re qualified. This proposal, were it passed, would likely be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. It’s an obvious restriction of the 2[sup]nd[/sup] amendment.
Setting aside the facts that existing gun laws aren’t enforced anyway, there is a big constitutional problem with gun registration of criminals. No, I’m not referring to the 2nd amendment, although in an ideal world it would also be a barrier to registration.
The ‘problem’ is the fifth amendment. Specifically, the right to avoid self-incrimination. This constitutional right means that if it is illegal for you to own a gun or even that particular gun (e.g. you are a felon, the particular gun itself is illegal in your state, etc. etc.) any law that would force you to admit that you own that gun is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced on you. Therefore, this and any other US gun registration scheme inherently only covers the persons for whom it is legal to own a gun. Unless it was legal for the criminal AWB referred to to own a gun, no additional charges could be brought for failure to register the gun.
Any US gun registration scheme can only effect law-abiding gun owners. The proponents these measures often claim they are about criminals, but they simply cannot be enforced on anyone illegally owning a gun. This proposal CAN only effect law abiding citizens.
Texas checking in. Guns are not allowed in public buildings unless you are a cop. Even if you have a concealed carry liscense, you can’t do it. As for private institutions, any of them can put up signs that are given to them by the state they say you can’t bring a gun onto the facility. Usually these signs are placed in places that serve alcohol, but they can be put anywhere.
As for deterents, gun crime is down here. It’s gone down since the concelaed carry law was passed, and even more so since the no tolerance law was passed. The no tolerance law simply states that if you commit a crime with a gun, you’ll automatically receive the longest sentence allowed by law. I wholeheartedly support this law. Registration/liscensing isn’t the way, in my opinion. It’s just one more thing those of us who obey the laws will have to do. I don’t believe it will work as a deterent at all. Just my $0.02.
Earlier this decade, the California state government told all owners of “assault-style weapons” to “register” with the state government, with no strings attached. Being law-abiding folks, they did it. Then the government decided to ban many of these firearms. And guess how they knew who owned them? They simply referenced their handy-dandy list, and sent them letters in the mail.
In fact, it is just the opposite of “far-fetched”; it is a virtual guarantee. Every country that has forced its citizens to register their firearms has used the data base for confiscation purposes, proving that registration is a prerequisite for confiscation.
I’d just like to pop in an remind everyone that this is GQ, and there are plenty of gun control threads already in GD. On the vague hope that we can possibly keep this thread here, can we try to keep this to the original, factual question, “What reasons does the NRA give for opposing Gore’s gun proposal?” Asking why a particular group says something is a bad idea is (barely) a factual question; asking whether something actually is a bad idea is not.
You know you and I think alike on this issue overall. I am not so confident, however, that the USSC would hear the case as a 2nd Amendment case, nor am I so sure that this current court would necessarily strike it down if it was. Scary, I know, but that’s my opinion.
That’s very true Anthracite, both sides on the gun-control issue have shown a certain hesitancy to actually test the 2[sup]nd[/sup] amendment in the courts.
But to help comply with Chronos’s request, I searched the NRA site to see what they had to say specifically on Gore’s licensing scheme. Sadly, I cannot provide a direct link, since the NRA chooses to use those evil frames, but I did find this:
NRA-ILA FAX ALERT - Vol. 7, No. 4 - 1/28/00
So, apparently the NRA considers the proposal an ineffectual tool with which to fight crime.