Food for thought

[Sedalia Dave]

 A Gun Nut’s Guide to Gun Control That Works. A federal license for possession of semi-automatic firearms could make Americans safer—and more free.

 

Interesting food for thought.  Before you pass judgement read the entire article including the what ifs.  

 

My personal opinion is that while you might possibly get pro-gun people to agree. The anti gun side will never agree because it forces them to abandon all the feel good laws they already have.

 

I also feel that the license should preclude the need for ANY FFL transfers.  

 

In the back of my mind I still see the cake analogy to gun control which gives me great pause. 

[Blackwater 53393]

There are numerous issues with this idea for me!  The first is that anyone who becomes “licensed” will instantly become part of a list.

Next, who will have control of accreditation and certification of which citizens are granted such a “license”?

Further, will such a “license” be a “shall issue” permit subject to passage of the vetting process?

Will the standard for issue be something recognized nation wide with reciprocity across all state and district lines?

Not the last question I have, but perhaps of greatest importance, what sort of tax, (YES!! This WILL be a tax levied on the right to keep and bear arms) dollar will the recipient of this “license” be required to surrender and how often will that citizen be required to pay for his rights ?

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

Criminals don't obey laws!

This will do nothing..........

I'm against any licensing in any way of my 2nd Amendment.

Will there also be a license required for the 1st Amendment? 

 

OLG

[Subdeacon Joe]

When Hell freezes over.   A certain party would have a 'vetting" process that a Harvard lawyer who is also a Camp Perry grand champion couldn't pass.  We have compromised too much already.  No other enumerated civil right requires a permit or license or registration (no, voting is NOT an enumerated civil right, all the Constitution says about it is that states may not discriminate in who can vote).

 Ни шагу назад!

[Charlie T Waite]

I have said that we will welcome all points of view so I appreciate this article brought to us by Sedalia Dave.  Look at the civil discussion to this post, unlike what it portrayed by the MSM or what a lot of people might think.  As for my input, I read through it twice and could really debunk most all of his article, but will only hit these two points.

 

The author states:
"If you were a federal gun license holder, you wouldn’t have to do an FFL transfer whenever you take delivery of a firearm." and "If you weren’t a license holder, then simple possession of any semi-auto weapon would be a felony".

 

This licensing scheme line of thought will not make us both safer and more free because criminals don't obey laws.  Actually it will cause more citizens to become felons because as previously stated standards would be set so high that no-one could pass the requirements.  Who do you think would be instrumental in setting those standards so this could pass, remember the anti-gunners?  Further this process does nothing to resolve the issues that cause the problems in the first place.

 

The author goes on to say: 

"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". 

 

So what has changed besides adding more laws and impediments to the exercise of our rights?  What has the left conceded or given up to entice our support? 

 

Charlie

[J.D. Daily]

The biggest defect of the authors' proposal is that it grants that all semi-auto firearms and those particularly have cosmetic or ergonomic features of current main battle rifles are "dangerous" so possession by the people can be regulated.  What the gun banners & activist judges ignore from late associate justice Anton Scalia's option for the majority in Heller is the phrase "in common use".  Their opinions skip the "Common Use" question & assume that any arm that a government entity restricts keeping & bearing is "dangerous"; therefore, only intermediate scrutiny is required in judging a statute or regulation's constitutionality.  Until SCOTUS grants Cert to a case involving MSR's we will not have a clearer understanding of what a in common use firearm is. So far after Niel Gorsuch join SCOTUS there haven't been 4 justices who want to tackle the issue.  It will at least require retirement of a justice or change of heart by a justice to happen.