[MP0WER]

Nice post Boss,

I thought of this in the shower this morning. it won't be popular with the paranoid, but here goes.

Why not require a license to own a fire arm just like a license to drive a car? There could be a handbook listing the code of arms for civilians. A written test, a proficiency test and a fee of $250. If you want a CCL you check another box on your appointment sheet and they'll issue an additional written and proficiency tests as well as an additional $300. I think at minimal cost to the tax payers, the ATF could regulate and administer these tests. NO NEED to create another branch of the government. But all be administered by the ATF just like DL tests are administered.

With this license you can legally own any legal firearm. With the CCL license you can do as you can now with a CCL. If a person is caught with a firearm without a license, the get charged with the same intensity as if they used that weapon in a crime without discharging it. I mean throw the effing book at them. Same goes for people with the license, if their gear gets stolen and used in a crime, they are an accessory to that crime. (unless reported stolen of course. but as mentioned before, 5 stolen reports and your license is revoked)

Now, i'm not a huge fan of this either, mainly because i don't necessarily want the government to know who the "trouble makers are". And before you call me paranoid, consider this; if the government doesn't trust me, why should i trust them? After all, i am a law abiding citizen without a criminal record whom you won't read about committing a crime with their firearm. And there are a lot of us out there. Millions in fact.

I'm willing to come to the table so to speak with some changes, but i'm not willing to give up my firearms. I have been the victim of a shooting and had circumstances been slightly different, i probably won't be typing this today. This incident prompted me to get my CCL on my 21st birthday and i've been armed ever since.

[MiddleAgedAl]

A good first step perhaps, but conspicuously absent from the licensing plan is any mention of proof that you have at least some rudimentary form of lockbox or something to keep the guns in when they are not under your direct physical control (ie: on your person).

Surely even the most militant NRA types (pun intended) would not say it's further infringing on their rights to require that any guest or other person in your home, who has not jumped thru all the hoops you have, could not easily take a weapon off the bedside table when you are not looking.

Perhaps if the Newtown shooters mom had things locked up, and her son didnt have a key, or know the combination, all those kids would be alive today.

[UncleWede]

MPower, I could take that to the table. and I would surely suport something similar for car licensing. I've been legally driving for more than 30 years, and my license in current in the state of Ca, but the only driving test I have ever been required to take was the original one. I've only had a single, 5-question written test required since then. Only once have I read the eye chart, and it's a restriction on my license already to wear corrective lenses. So I'm obviously worried about the implementation of gun licensing.

On the notes about CA, none of my guns are registered, but I got them at age 12 and 18. One I can load 7 +1, the other 5+1. Both have trigger locks, but that is something I bought AS A RESPONSIBLE owner.

[carve]

Originally Posted by Templar

I don't agree with the crowd that will say we need them to "overthrow our government." I'm not that paranoid...
.

The fact that that need may one day exist doesn't mean it'll exist any time soon. One of the reasons it isn't a concern right now in the first place is because the 2A exists.

[ZJP]

Originally Posted by solefald

Hide them? You do not need to hide them. The ban does not mean they will take yours away. It just means you can't buy them any more.

They will not take your guns away, buddy. I can't imagine any of government agencies signing up to go on this confiscation suicide mission....

http://www.infowars.com/new-york-gov...n-are-options/

[solefald]

Originally Posted by ZJP

http://www.infowars.com/new-york-gov...n-are-options/

Andrew Cuomo is a naive man. He can introduce whatever bill he wants, it does not mean that bill won't be immediately killed.

[JuuS]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

Nice post Boss,

I thought of this in the shower this morning. it won't be popular with the paranoid, but here goes.

Why not require a license to own a fire arm just like a license to drive a car? There could be a handbook listing the code of arms for civilians. A written test, a proficiency test and a fee of $250. If you want a CCL you check another box on your appointment sheet and they'll issue an additional written and proficiency tests as well as an additional $300. I think at minimal cost to the tax payers, the ATF could regulate and administer these tests. NO NEED to create another branch of the government. But all be administered by the ATF just like DL tests are administered.

With this license you can legally own any legal firearm. With the CCL license you can do as you can now with a CCL. If a person is caught with a firearm without a license, the get charged with the same intensity as if they used that weapon in a crime without discharging it. I mean throw the effing book at them. Same goes for people with the license, if their gear gets stolen and used in a crime, they are an accessory to that crime. (unless reported stolen of course. but as mentioned before, 5 stolen reports and your license is revoked)

Now, i'm not a huge fan of this either, mainly because i don't necessarily want the government to know who the "trouble makers are". And before you call me paranoid, consider this; if the government doesn't trust me, why should i trust them? After all, i am a law abiding citizen without a criminal record whom you won't read about committing a crime with their firearm. And there are a lot of us out there. Millions in fact.

I'm willing to come to the table so to speak with some changes, but i'm not willing to give up my firearms. I have been the victim of a shooting and had circumstances been slightly different, i probably won't be typing this today. This incident prompted me to get my CCL on my 21st birthday and i've been armed ever since.

This is good advice. Welcome to Canada. (except for the CCL part!)
The problem remains however that you're regulating the law abiding gun owner which means, it won't fly with the NRA. Perhaps a compromise is in order. The issue is not arguing if guns are allowed. That's your 2nd ammendment so it's clear gun ownership is a right. How about proposing a licensing scheme as you suggest that regulates the speed of sales. Folks with a license, along with a few levels of profficiency tags, would allow instant purchase of gun. Those that do not have a license, have to wait a long time. This would cool down any would-be assailant. Certainly not foolproof, but most wackjobs would not take 1/2 a year to earn their credentials before a going on a rampage.

[bosstones]

Originally Posted by JuuS

This is good advice. Welcome to Canada.

Does that mean he needs to start using milk bags?

[JuuS]

I've only seen those for a few years when i was a kid. Forgotten about them until you mentioned it. lol.

[ken1137]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

Nice post Boss,
Why not require a license to own a fire arm just like a license to drive a car? There could be a handbook listing the code of arms for civilians. A written test, a proficiency test and a fee of $250. If you want a CCL you check another box on your appointment sheet and they'll issue an additional written and proficiency tests as well as an additional $300. I think at minimal cost to the tax payers, the ATF could regulate and administer these tests. NO NEED to create another branch of the government. But all be administered by the ATF just like DL tests are administered.

Here in IL we have what is called an FOID license (card). Firearms Owners Id. This is required for ownership of any firearm in IL. You cannot buy a weapon or ammo without this card at the time of purchase. The fee is very low and the State Police do a background check which takes about a month. Many (about 99%) of the shootings in Chicago do not involve legal ownership. Dont get me wrong, it is a great idea for those States that do not require one, but in IL we have proved this does not prevent such tragic events. Maybe something tied to mental health, but then we have the doctor/patient privilege issue.

We can also obtain a CCW license from the State of Utah or FL. A class is involved and with the FL license there is a shooting requirement, albeit any experienced shooter can pass.

BTW...+1000...I'm keeping my collection and will be adding another 1911 soon.

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

A good first step perhaps, but conspicuously absent from the licensing plan is any mention of proof that you have at least some rudimentary form of lockbox or something to keep the guns in when they are not under your direct physical control (ie: on your person).

Surely even the most militant NRA types (pun intended) would not say it's further infringing on their rights to require that any guest or other person in your home, who has not jumped thru all the hoops you have, could not easily take a weapon off the bedside table when you are not looking.

Perhaps if the Newtown shooters mom had things locked up, and her son didnt have a key, or know the combination, all those kids would be alive today.

So, based on your "perhaps", your conjecture, you want to mandate that every law abiding gun owner (millions of which are having no problems with controlling their weapons) adopt your idea of good security? Do you really think that will preclude a bad act?

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by ken1137

Here in IL we have what is called an FOID license (card). Firearms Owners Id. This is required for ownership of any firearm in IL. You cannot buy a weapon or ammo without this card at the time of purchase. The fee is very low and the State Police do a background check which takes about a month. Many (about 99%) of the shootings in Chicago do not involve legal ownership. Dont get me wrong, it is a great idea for those States that do not require one, but in IL we have proved this does not prevent such tragic events. Maybe something tied to mental health, but then we have the doctor/patient privilege issue.

We can also obtain a CCW license from the State of Utah or FL. A class is involved and with the FL license there is a shooting requirement, albeit any experienced shooter can pass.

BTW...+1000...I'm keeping my collection and will be adding another 1911 soon.

And all these measures do a grand job of keeping law abiding gun owners in check. Meanwhile, in Chicago, the murders continue--committed by people who don't care what laws are inacted.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

So, based on your "perhaps", your conjecture, you want to mandate that every law abiding gun owner (millions of which are having no problems with controlling their weapons) adopt your idea of good security? Do you really think that will preclude a bad act?

I take it you do have a problem with the idea of keeping your gun locked or in a secure place ? Yes, there are millions of law abiding gun owners who have no problem controlling their weapons, probably because a large percentage of them already have some form of gun safe or locking cabinet or something. For those people, asking to provide some sort of proof they have a lock should be no problem for them at all.

Is my idea of "security" (when your not using it, dont leave it lying on the kitchen counter) really that draconian or unreasonable ? Certainly in the Newtown shooting, if the mother knew her kid was unstable, and kept her guns locked up (without giving him a key), then yes, I do think it would have precluded a bad act.

[M3_WC]

Originally Posted by kingofthedemo

I just joined the NRA. If you are a gun owner who wishes to keep your rights, I strongly recommend that you do the same right away, given the current situation. You can also send donations.... These guys fight for our rights and there is really strength in numbers.

http://home.nra.org/#/nraorg

Will join tomorrow.

Although I don't currently own any guns, I did in the past and most likely will own some in the future.

[Fresh Face]

Originally Posted by silvergray545

Very well said bosstones.

The government will not be collecting rifles from civilians. There's no way they can, for many reasons.

1. People will refuse to give up their weapons.
2. Funding a program to collect firearms is not a good idea. We're already trillions in debt. Adding a few billion to the total is not a smart move.
3. For some people, firearms are an investment. How can the government accurately value and pay citizens for the money they've invested? Which also goes back to number 2.
4. With the amount of firearms in this country, I would not be surprised to see a revolt from the die hards.

I'm truly sorry to tell you guys this, and frankly I'm shocked no one has said this so far, but they've taken away our guns by using door to door tactics, and not just from criminals and gangsters, but also from innocent people just trying to defend their homes from criminals and gangsters (uniformed police officers being the criminals in some cases). Have you heard of hurricane Katrina? Most of the people who had their guns taken away ILLEGALLY by police and soldiers, never got them back. I'll tell you this much, if this shit ever happened to me, these mother fuckers would get 3 things from me, and in this order.
1. Verbal warning about the illegality and un-constitutionality (if that's a word) of what they're trying to do. Should they choose to not back off, they get 2 and 3.
2. Homemade chlorine gas bombs and incendiary explosives
3. Volley of 7.62x39
Not saying i'd survive, but if that's what it took to start the revolution against fascists, i'd do it. Or maybe I wouldn't, i might roll over like everyone else in New Orleans did. Or maybe just plain hiding my guns would be a better idea. I'm interested in what the rest of you guys think about these videos.

[MP0WER]

Originally Posted by ken1137

Here in IL we have what is called an FOID license (card). Firearms Owners Id. This is required for ownership of any firearm in IL. You cannot buy a weapon or ammo without this card at the time of purchase. The fee is very low and the State Police do a background check which takes about a month. Many (about 99%) of the shootings in Chicago do not involve legal ownership. Dont get me wrong, it is a great idea for those States that do not require one, but in IL we have proved this does not prevent such tragic events. Maybe something tied to mental health, but then we have the doctor/patient privilege issue.

We can also obtain a CCW license from the State of Utah or FL. A class is involved and with the FL license there is a shooting requirement, albeit any experienced shooter can pass.

BTW...+1000...I'm keeping my collection and will be adding another 1911 soon.

That's one thing nice about the 1911s, hi cap mag ban won't affect them!

Originally Posted by OldArmy

And all these measures do a grand job of keeping law abiding gun owners in check. Meanwhile, in Chicago, the murders continue--committed by people who don't care what laws are inacted.

If this licensing was in place and everyone who committed a firearm crime was not licensed, maybe everyone would get up off our backs about gun control.

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

I take it you do have a problem with the idea of keeping your gun locked or in a secure place ? Yes, there are millions of law abiding gun owners who have no problem controlling their weapons, probably because a large percentage of them already have some form of gun safe or locking cabinet or something. For those people, asking to provide some sort of proof they have a lock should be no problem for them at all.

Is my idea of "security" (when your not using it, dont leave it lying on the kitchen counter) really that draconian or unreasonable ? Certainly in the Newtown shooting, if the mother knew her kid was unstable, and kept her guns locked up (without giving him a key), then yes, I do think it would have precluded a bad act.

I'm not sure you know that every firearm purchased new comes with a lock. Not that a nice set of bolt cutters couldn't get through it but they do come with locks.

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

I take it you do have a problem with the idea of keeping your gun locked or in a secure place ? Yes, there are millions of law abiding gun owners who have no problem controlling their weapons, probably because a large percentage of them already have some form of gun safe or locking cabinet or something. For those people, asking to provide some sort of proof they have a lock should be no problem for them at all.

Is my idea of "security" (when your not using it, dont leave it lying on the kitchen counter) really that draconian or unreasonable ? Certainly in the Newtown shooting, if the mother knew her kid was unstable, and kept her guns locked up (without giving him a key), then yes, I do think it would have precluded a bad act.

Perhaps I'm not so articulate as I wish I was. My weapons are secure from use by anyone outside of my nuclear group. That's a prudent measure that I take because I find it to be a sound practice. What does concern me is having "you" in my house, in my private space, imposing your ideas of what is reasonable on me, to no certain endstate. It is a problem for me to have an increasingly intrusive government taking a greater and greater number of actions "for my own good". And of course I believe it just won't work to solve the problem at hand. Should I really have to go down to the county seat and show them a picture of my gun safe or a receipt for a lock when that is no proof that I actually have or use same?

Could not the same end be achieved by heavy criminal and civil penalties for allowing your weapons to be use in commission of a crime? To that, I have no objection whatsoever. See the difference?

[ken1137]

Illinois politicians ...

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/st...gislation.aspx

[bosstones]

Pretty much the same proposed legislation that failed to go to vote in the IL Senate this past week is now being snuck into a Sunday session in the House as Amendment #1 to SB2899. This pretty much does away with every common, and not-so, handgun except < 50oz wheel guns. Not sure what sticks would be left, but even 10/22s would be illegal.

[SAINT VAN ROCK]

Lifetime Member here

[solefald]

I don't know why I expected some kind of middle of the road agreement between NRA and Obama administration.
Looks like there will be no agreement....

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/ne...spx?s=&st=&ps=

Fairfax, Va. – The National Rifle Association of America is made up of over 4 million moms and dads, daughters and sons, who are involved in the national conversation about how to prevent a tragedy like Newtown from ever happening again. We attended today's White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals.

We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners - honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans. It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works - and what does not.

JOIN NOW!