Mojo
Go Here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=39887&pagenumber=4
Care to narrow it down? There’s 50 posts there, most very lengthy. I skimmed and couldn’t find what you’re referring to. Is it a reference to something in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc…??
Call me cynical for not taking your statement at face value, but the argument sounds veerrry close to that of an acquaintance who believes that the gov’t has no authority to restrict/cite unlicensed drivers as its a burden on interstate commerce and they’ve broken no laws other than being unlicensed. However, the gov’t still continues with their “illegal & unconstitutional” licensing scheme.
To refer back to what pkbites said in an earlier post, "One big thing I object to is Gores proposal to ban “cheap unsafe handguns”. Maybe this could be fought on the basis that it would discriminate against the segments of society that can’t afford the more expensive handguns.
No cite, but I think that generally the minorities in the US are said to be economically disadvantaged. So a law that removes affordable means of defense from the market could be construed as discriminatory.
Thanks for all the replies and thanks for trying to keep it basically on topic and out of GD. I was hoping that it wouldn’t grow uncontrollably into a Great Gun Debate.
I do have a few comments about the proposal that I think deals with some of the responses:
First, I disagree that the licenses would tell the government who had guns, should they ever decide to confiscate the weapons. Having a gun license does not necessarily mean you have a gun. Also, with a gun license, you would be able to purchase multiple guns possibly without any tracability (actually, this is the thing that worries me about the scheme). It seems to me that the existing background check mechanism is much more effective at keeping track of who has how many guns than a licensing scheme would be.
Several people in this thread still seem to be confused about the difference between registration and licensing - I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised.
Second, the licensing does not change the laws in any way. It only tries to enforce them a bit more rigorously. Therefore, I don’t see how the licensing program would have any effect on punishment of people in illegal posession of a firearm.
Third, some folks here are arguing that the government has no right to regulate who owns a firearm, but the fact is, the government already does regulate this (though arguably they’re not particularly effective at it). The licensing scheme merely formalizes and fixes problems with the current ad hoc approaches currently being applied. I don’t see how anyone can argue that this makes it more difficult for law abiding citizens to legally obtain firearms. If anything, it makes it easier.
Lastly, and most importantly, to the argument that it’s a bad idea because it’s ineffectual. I think this is a silly argument. True, this kind of constraint will not have a major effect on the ability of convicted felons to obtain handguns, but it will have some effect. We know this because we know, for instance, that the Texas instant background check has proven ineffective in at least 66 instances where convicted felons were sold guns after passing the instant check. Licensing would also prevent the sale of guns to other non criminals that should not have guns, juveniles and possibly the mentally ill. Plus, requiring the gun safety training insures that if you’ve got a license, you’ve got the training. I don’t want to debate whether this is a good idea or not or within the rights granted by the constitution - I’m only saying that if gun safety training is a requirement, the license scheme seems like an ideal mechanism to enforce it.
I’m frankly dumbfounded by the suggestion that the proposal is too expensive and not comprehensive enough - if it saves even one life, then it’s worth it. I might back down on this position if I thought, somehow, someone’s civil liberties were being infringed, but I just don’t see it.
opus asked:
Most guns used in criminal activities are stolen from law abiding citizens. The solution is obvious, but very unpopular.
On a tangent, has anyone proposed using an existing form of identification to check for a criminal record? Drunk drivers (at least in Texas) have to carry both their old, cut up drivers licences and a second paper license while on probation (I don’t know the details; this is just something I’ve casually noticed.)
It seems like drivers license restriction for felons could be mandated (or linked to funding), would work, would not affect anyone else’s rights and would be a minimal intrusion on the privacy of those convicted. It would also get around the absurdity of having a special license for a constitutionally protected right.
Joey, for someone claiming “I don’t want to debate,” you’re sure doing a damn fine job of expressing your view. I guess you just wanna tell us what you think and don’t wanna hear how the rest of us feel.
But, I’ll take your words at face value and pose a question to you.
Can you prove this? Where did you hear it?
Just for good measure, here’s another.
What? I guess you haven’t read the rest of Al Gore’s proposal. He’d like to limit your gun purchases to one per month.
Now, I’m trying really hard to not respond with a rebuttal of your opinions, since that’d be a debate, but you can’t really expect to toss out your ideas and not have them challenged. I think you’re being a bit disingenuous here.
By the way, you may read Gore’s full gun control agenda here, http://www.algore.com/guns/gun_agenda2.html
No it isn’t. His proposal is simply that if you’re a felon, you can’t get a handgun license. We already have limitations on who can own firearms, and this would simply do those background checks, and issue you a license if you pass the check. If you’re all for absolutely no control, then do you think an 8 year old should be able to go into any store and buy a gun? How about a person on parole for armed robbery? The license system wouldn’t add any new restrictions, it would just make it MUCH easier to check to see if the person met the existing requirements. Gun shows could now run instant background checks, since the license would show them that they passed the background check. If you need a license to drive a car, and that seems ok…I don’t see the big deal about getting a license to get a gun. If I want a gun to protect my family, I can get one. There’s no rights infringement.
Jman
Ahh, you proofread it. Apparently, I can’t.
Fuck it.
Jman, where do you get the idea that I’m in favor of “absolutely no control?” As for eight year olds and felons with guns, that’s just ludicrous. I’m not even going to respond further to that idiocy.
I suggest you go back and read that second sentence again. I’ll highlight the important part right here for you.
No where in this “proposal” does Gore delineate his requirements for eligibility. It could mean anything at all. I see nothing about denying eligibility to felons only.
But does that make it right?
The government does all kinds of things that are un-Constitutional, illegal, unethical, and immoral. Just because the government “does” something certainly doesn’t make it right.
So your source was you.
Here’s what is wrong with Gore’s proposal.
If I legally buy a handgun and it gets stolen the first day I buy it, I have to wait 30 days until I get a replacement. Meanwhile, some guy has my gun and may very well know when I bought it. Since I’m a law abiding citizen I can’t get another one. I wonder if the criminal who stole my gun will be so kind as to wait 30 days until he or she comes back.
The State of Illinois already has a Firearm Owner ID (picture id card)system. The Brady Bill provides that States with these programs do not have to do the 3 day background checks. The State of Illinois says that you do, and the Brady Bill says that the State’s requirements prevail. So the enactment of Gore’s proposal won’t save anything. You may not even handle a weapon in Illinois without a FOID, nor can you purchase ammunition. The law (Chapter 430, Act 65/3) also requires that you record the FOID card number and the gun’s serial number if you sell the weapon in the State of Illinois, you must retain the record for 10 years and produce it for inspection on the demand of a peace officer. In reality it seems to be just another tax since it cost $35 IIRC and must be renewed every 5 years.
JoeyBlades wrote:
I’m frankly dumbfounded by the suggestion that the proposal would save even one life. This kind of claim isn’t appropriate of this forum, particularly given that you are assuming an effect that hadn’t even been alluded to in this thread to date. I will point out that the assertion that this proposal would on average save lives is entirely without support, and that in my opinion it is also without merit.
As to infringing on civil liberties, elsewhere you mention:
This sort of test is exactly how one would use a licence to effectively ban legal gun ownership. Lawmakers could just require a specific safely training course and never actually teach it, or make the ‘safety’ standards unattainable. Ridiculous? This type of tactic is used currently by some local governments for (not) issuing concealed carry permits. It’s not a stretch to imagine it would be used for gun licences requiring a test. (Also, recall the practice of discriminatory voting tests… a right one is required to pass a test in order to exercise isn’t being treated as a right)
Others have made the analogy to a driver’s license. Let me point out that driver’s licenses have proven to be readily forged, as well as vulnerable to the fairly common practice of fraudulently using someone else’s license. Licensing in itself would also have no effect on people legally buying guns and illegally reselling them to felons or others for whom it is illegal to possess.
UncleBeer:
I didn’t say I didn’t want to debate, I just don’t want to debate the typical gun control issues that generally find their way into the Great Debates forum. Obviously, if it seems to me that respondents are misinterpreting Gore’s proposal or making poor assumptions, I’m going to point it out.
Bad guess - I’ve read it. My point is still valid. There’s not a one-to-one correlation with licenses-to-guns. However, this point is actually irrelevant to the thread. That is a separate issue on Al Gore’s overall gun control proposal and independent of the licensing scheme. I’m NOT asking what are all of the problems with Al Gore’s stated gun policies…
Funny, I read your statements and the ones from others in this thread and must say, I couldn’t have said it better myself.
later…
Of course, nowhere in the proposal does it indicate that the requirements for eligibility would be any different than they are today.
Crafter:
Sorry, that’s another discussion completely. If you want to have that one, please start a new thread.
I missed this thread 'cause I was attending a “community corrections providers fair”,
probably too late to mention that my experience with the cj system (20+ years) is exactly opposite to pkbites, in that prosecutors OFTEN (at least here in MI) stack the charges up. They often will also use this as leverage in plea bargains (we’ll drop these 3 in exchange for…) but absolutely prosecutors LOVE having extra stuff to add onto the rack.
Now, I ** have ** seen them decline to prosecute when the person in some rare cases (a woman was being returned to prison for rule violations, while I packed up her property, I came across a 3 foot high stack of law books from the local law school, all marked “not to be taken from…”. I contacted the law school who were mystified that the books would be able to be taken w/o setting off alarms (hey, she was ** good! **), but the prosecutor declined to charge her on it.
But, frankly, that’s a real rarity.
feel free to proceed with your um, discussion.
Oh, and to throw out another wrinkle: Just where do ** you ** believe criminals get guns? when questioning my guys, usually it’s sold 'tween each other, from stealing from gun stores (rarely since their security is generally pretty damned good), bought from gun shows that are unregulated and stolen from home owners. Where else? anyone got any figures on illegally imported guns that don’t see the open market? Guns have registration numbers, right? so they can be traced back to last legal owner. Should be something SOMEBODY keeps track of.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by UncleBeer *
**http://www.algore.com/guns/gun_agenda2.html
**
**
The Federal Government would also have to give states the money to do these things. Can anyone say unfunded mandate?
Marc
Oblong:
That’s a different discussion.
hardhead365:
This seems like a legitimate objection, however it doesn’t seem that the flaw is with the licensing, but rather with the State’s decision to hold tighter constraints than federal law requires.
Tim:
I’m not making that claim. Likewise, I don’t claim that child-proof safety caps on aspirin bottles and household cleaners have saved even one life.
True, but as I said, I’m not seeking challenges to every gun control restriction proposed by Gore or anyone else. I’m just saying that if the requirement exists, having it be a part of the license makes it easier for gun buyers to show they qualify.
License forgery is a rapidly shrinking crime due to higher technology license ‘media’. Would it be foolproof? Probably not. Would it be a deterrent to fraudulently obtaining a weapon? I think so.
True, but this is an even bigger problem with the current system. Separate photo licensing could help mitigate this risk.
**
That’s kind of silly, isn’t it? I’d say that the vast majority of those with a license to own a firearm will have one.
**
I would imagine that they would write down your license number and include it in whatever paper work they send to the government. Sounds fairly traceable to me.
**
Actually it does change the law. It would make it illegal to own a handgun without a license. Here in Texas you don’t need a license to own a handgun.
**
I don’t think it is silly at all. Ineffective laws have a way of deteriorating respect for law enforcement. They also tend to inspire people to pass more and more restrictive laws because those others were ineffective.
**
How many criminals got guns under Brady? How many were mistakenly denied their right to purchase a handgun?
**
You mean most minors are purchasing firearms at Wal-Mart or other such places?
**
There are a lot of things we could do to save just one life. Lower the speed limit to 20 in ever city for one thing. I hate to sound like a cold S.O.B. but just because it saves a few lives doesn’t make it worthwhile in the grand scheme of things.
Marc