Gun Permit

[Occupied Deutschland]

...
according to the document exercising your right also puts you under the direct command of the president.
...

Only if called into the actual service of the United States.

[Greed and Death]

It is Unconstitutional to charge a fee to exercise a Constitutional Right.

the right is debatable, dynamite is an arm, but requires a permit, as do RPG's.

according to the document exercising your right also puts you under the direct command of the president.

Also the constitution can and has been wrong, and can and has been changed and/or reinterpreted.

Not how the current supreme court has read the document.

[Sociobiology]

the right is debatable, dynamite is an arm, but requires a permit, as do RPG's.

according to the document exercising your right also puts you under the direct command of the president.

Also the constitution can and has been wrong, and can and has been changed and/or reinterpreted.

The constitution has never been wrong regarding the standing law in the United States, as there is no higher authority to overrule it.

Interpretations, however, have been overturned and changed over time. Amendments have also been made.

However, that doesn't make the constitution wrong with regard to standing law. By definition, it cannot be.

and the basic question of this entire thread is about changing the standing law, thus potential is important.
If changing or reinterpreting the constitution is what is necessary, to do what is best for the country, then so be it.
once people were property, women could not vote, alcohol was prohibited, it is hardly unprecedented.
lastly of course we already interpret the constitution in such a way that the right to bear arms is not guaranteed, otherwise it could not be denied to released felons, or the mentally ill, or those who purchase firearms illegally.

[Sociobiology]

I would not support this law!

any reason?

[Sociobiology]

except your not because abortion causes no harm to society, if anything it does the opposite.
parents with few high investment children tend to produce more successful, and thus statistically more productive, children.

It helps if you know the first thing about population genetics.

Bull shit I just showed you a societial harm and you conceded it with your quip about postpartum depression suicides.

no I conceded there is a factor of harm, as wells as a factor of aid as shown, ALL actions have the potential for harm, the frequency and proportion of net harm is important.
not to mention suicide is by far and away more common with a firearm than an abortion.
It is not that firearms cause harm it is that they cause great harm, with no conciliatory benefit that would be lost with mandatory permitting.

both of those points are incorrect for abortions.

[Galloism]

actually tractor trailers do require a CDL

Also a dozen stable explosives also fit your definition and do require permits, because much like firearms they have limited legitimate uses, were as fertilizer and diesel fuel have an overwhelming number of legitimate uses.

Firearms have an immense number of legitimate uses, particularly compared to fertilizer.

Fertilizer has one use: assisting in plant growth.

Firearms can be used to bring home food, recreation, safety classes, family bonding, personal defense, and home defense.

Also, tractor trailers require a CDL to drive legally. Any bozo can buy one.

Missed one there.

[Galloism]

The constitution has never been wrong regarding the standing law in the United States, as there is no higher authority to overrule it.

Interpretations, however, have been overturned and changed over time. Amendments have also been made.

However, that doesn't make the constitution wrong with regard to standing law. By definition, it cannot be.

and the basic question of this entire thread is about changing the standing law, thus potential is important.
If changing or reinterpreting the constitution is what is necessary, to do what is best for the country, then so be it.
once people were property, women could not vote, alcohol was prohibited, it is hardly unprecedented.
lastly of course we already interpret the constitution in such a way that the right to bear arms is not guaranteed, otherwise it could not be denied to released felons, or the mentally ill, or those who purchase firearms illegally.

Rights in the constitution are not free from reasonable regulation.

The question is, is your licensing program reasonable regulation? The courts would have to rule on that.

[Sociobiology]

actually tractor trailers do require a CDL

Also a dozen stable explosives also fit your definition and do require permits, because much like firearms they have limited legitimate uses, were as fertilizer and diesel fuel have an overwhelming number of legitimate uses.

Firearms have an immense number of legitimate uses, particularly compared to fertilizer.

Fertilizer has one use: assisting in plant growth.

Firearms can be used to bring home food, recreation, safety classes, family bonding, personal defense, and home defense.

Also, tractor trailers require a CDL to drive legally. Any bozo can buy one.

I can have safety classes about fertilizer (I have actually) a family could bond over fertilizer (i'm sure family businesses that make it do), I can use a fertilizer bomb for personal and home defense, or even certain fertilizers by themselves, it can easily be used in recreation (some indeed are), and I was not aware growing food did not count as bringing home food.

but a gun cannot be used to grow lumber, or plants in general.

Also number of plants in the US >>>>>>>> than the number of animals to hunt or people to shoot.

sorry your logic is flawed

[Sociobiology]

and the basic question of this entire thread is about changing the standing law, thus potential is important.
If changing or reinterpreting the constitution is what is necessary, to do what is best for the country, then so be it.
once people were property, women could not vote, alcohol was prohibited, it is hardly unprecedented.
lastly of course we already interpret the constitution in such a way that the right to bear arms is not guaranteed, otherwise it could not be denied to released felons, or the mentally ill, or those who purchase firearms illegally.

Rights in the constitution are not free from reasonable regulation.

The question is, is your licensing program reasonable regulation? The courts would have to rule on that.

which is why we are discussing the legitimacy, which the "its potentially unconstitutional" argument adds nothing too.

[Galloism]

Firearms have an immense number of legitimate uses, particularly compared to fertilizer.

Fertilizer has one use: assisting in plant growth.

Firearms can be used to bring home food, recreation, safety classes, family bonding, personal defense, and home defense.

Also, tractor trailers require a CDL to drive legally. Any bozo can buy one.

I can have safety classes about fertilizer (I have actually) a family could bond over fertilizer, I can use a fertilizer bomb for personal and home defense, it can easily be used in recreation and I was not aware growing food did not count as bringing home food.

but a gun cannot be used to grow lumber, or plants in general.

Also number of plants in the US >>>>>>>> than the number of animals to hunt or people to shoot.

sorry your logic is flawed

I'm pretty sure home defense fertilizer bombs are illegal, in addition to horridly impractical.

Families can bond gardening suppose. It can produce food (as a subset of plants). That makes three for fertilizer. I've never heard of a fertilizer safety class, but lets suppose I give you that one.

That's 4 legitimate uses for fertilizer. 6 legitimate uses for firearms.

[Galloism]

Rights in the constitution are not free from reasonable regulation.

The question is, is your licensing program reasonable regulation? The courts would have to rule on that.

which is why we are discussing the legitimacy, which the "its potentially unconstitutional" argument adds nothing too.

Actually, it does. Whether or not your plan has a snowball's chance in hell of being considered, and then if it has a chance in hell of surviving constitutional challenge is an important subset of the "can this work" metric of any idea.

[Trotskylvania]

I really don't see anything seriously wrong with this proposal. Start from here, and modify as needed after implementation.

[Sociobiology]

which is why we are discussing the legitimacy, which the "its potentially unconstitutional" argument adds nothing too.

Actually, it does. Whether or not your plan has a snowball's chance in hell of being considered, and then if it has a chance in hell of surviving constitutional challenge is an important subset of the "can this work" metric of any idea.

except all data tells us it is an known unknown, we can only predict this on a personal level of legitimacy, unless you are willing to discuss opinion pieces by each justice and similar opinions on countries that have passed similar legislation. which no one has proposed or attempted.
If you don't do this it is just a red herring.

Also an amendment if passed is by definition legal.

[Chernoslavia]

What is your your stance on mandatory background checks for gun ownership and/or a firearms permit, and why.

My proposal
create a federal firearms permit.
It would be a lifetime permit

getting said permit requires a background check, a minimal fee to cover cost (~$5-15), a written test, a one afternoon class on firearms safety, and a practical test (demonstrate safety, hit a reasonable target at reasonable distance)

the licence can be revoked for gun violations (reckless discharge, illegal sales, ect.) , diagnosis of a serious mental disorder, or conviction of violent crime (armed robbery, attempted homicide, ect.).

To buy a firearm form any seller (including private sellers), to buy certain parts(like receivers),
and to buy ammunition you will need a valid permit.

Record of sales will be kept, but accessible only with a warrant.
so law enforcement can track dirty gun dealers, and illegal sales

Edit: things like concealed carry, collectors permits, and perhaps even different firearms type (shotgun, handgun, ect.) would be endorsements on the card.

Nope, not necessary.

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

No. I support the 2nd amendment without restrictions.

[Galloism]

Actually, it does. Whether or not your plan has a snowball's chance in hell of being considered, and then if it has a chance in hell of surviving constitutional challenge is an important subset of the "can this work" metric of any idea.

except all data tells us it is an known unknown, we can only predict this on a personal level of legitimacy, unless you are willing to discuss opinion pieces by each justice and similar opinions on countries that have passed similar legislation. which no one has proposed or attempted.
If you don't do this it is just a red herring.

Also an amendment if passed is by definition legal.

And your op mentioned no amendment, just a national registration.

We could discuss case law on the subject if you like.

[Sociobiology]

except all data tells us it is an known unknown, we can only predict this on a personal level of legitimacy, unless you are willing to discuss opinion pieces by each justice and similar opinions on countries that have passed similar legislation. which no one has proposed or attempted.
If you don't do this it is just a red herring.

Also an amendment if passed is by definition legal.

And your op mentioned no amendment, just a national registration.

right because we am discussing the regulation not what legal method it would have to be proposed as which is uninteresting.
I could personally care less how the law has to be passed, just whether it is a good idea.

because the courts and legislature are not very consistent, they can take away right to trial with a simple act, but they had to amend the constitution to make alcohol illegal.
the more I learn about politics the less intelligent it seems.

[Sociobiology]

No. I support the 2nd amendment without restrictions.

so you don't think dynamite should require a permit??

[Essos]

What is your your stance on mandatory background checks for gun ownership and/or a firearms permit, and why.

My proposal
create a federal firearms permit.
It would be a lifetime permit

getting said permit requires a background check, a minimal fee to cover cost (~$5-15), a written test, a one afternoon class on firearms safety, and a practical test (demonstrate safety, hit a reasonable target at reasonable distance)

the licence can be revoked for gun violations (reckless discharge, illegal sales, ect.) , diagnosis of a serious mental disorder, or conviction of violent crime (armed robbery, attempted homicide, ect.).

To buy a firearm form any seller (including private sellers), to buy certain parts(like receivers),
and to buy ammunition you will need a valid permit.

Record of sales will be kept, but accessible only with a warrant.
so law enforcement can track dirty gun dealers, and illegal sales

Edit: things like concealed carry, collectors permits, and perhaps even different firearms type (shotgun, handgun, ect.) would be endorsements on the card.

The problem I see with your proposal is that it leaves alot of room for interpretation. "Reasonable" pops up in there a few times. I also object to what amounts to a gun registry being created. I'm generally opposed to the government making registries of anything, so take that as you will.

The only way I might be convinced to accept something like this if all other gun laws were rescinded, and a provision was put in place that no further laws could be put into place, preferably through extensive modification of the second ammendment to strengthen and modernize its language.

[Sociobiology]

What is your your stance on mandatory background checks for gun ownership and/or a firearms permit, and why.

My proposal
create a federal firearms permit.
It would be a lifetime permit

getting said permit requires a background check, a minimal fee to cover cost (~$5-15), a written test, a one afternoon class on firearms safety, and a practical test (demonstrate safety, hit a reasonable target at reasonable distance)

the licence can be revoked for gun violations (reckless discharge, illegal sales, ect.) , diagnosis of a serious mental disorder, or conviction of violent crime (armed robbery, attempted homicide, ect.).

To buy a firearm form any seller (including private sellers), to buy certain parts(like receivers),
and to buy ammunition you will need a valid permit.

Record of sales will be kept, but accessible only with a warrant.
so law enforcement can track dirty gun dealers, and illegal sales

Edit: things like concealed carry, collectors permits, and perhaps even different firearms type (shotgun, handgun, ect.) would be endorsements on the card.

The problem I see with your proposal is that it leaves alot of room for interpretation. "Reasonable" pops up in there a few times.

because there is a gray area that can be debated.

I also object to what amounts to a gun registry being created. I'm generally opposed to the government making registries of anything, so take that as you will.

regulation cannot function without a registry otherwise a police officer have to take your word for it that a firearm was purchased legally, which means there s no point of having a permit.
imagine if police could not check and see if your drivers licence was valid.

The only way I might be convinced to accept something like this if all other gun laws were rescinded,

well most of them would become obsolete.

and a provision was put in place that no further laws could be put into place,

yeah thats never going to happen, and should never happen, tomorrow someone might invent something unaccounted for.

[Essos]

The problem I see with your proposal is that it leaves alot of room for interpretation. "Reasonable" pops up in there a few times.

because there is a gray area that can be debated.

I also object to what amounts to a gun registry being created. I'm generally opposed to the government making registries of anything, so take that as you will.

regulation cannot function without a registry otherwise a police officer have to take your word for it that a firearm was purchased legally, which means there s no point of having a permit.
imagine if police could not check and see if your drivers licence was valid.

The only way I might be convinced to accept something like this if all other gun laws were rescinded,

well most of them would become obsolete.

and a provision was put in place that no further laws could be put into place,

yeah thats never going to happen, and should never happen, tomorrow someone might invent something unaccounted for.

Unless there is a radical creation that lies entirely otside the bounds of science fiction, it's really hard to come up with something unaccounted for. Whether your gun shoots dakka, bolts, lasers, N/CPBs, or what have ye, it remains at base a gun. You can even include an all future weapons category, just to be on the safe side. For when we finally get personal laser rifles. Because we were promised laser rifles, dammit.

Most of them would not become obsolete, all of them would. Everything up to and including the NFA would be so much useless paper. If you're going to make people jump through these sorts of hoops, everything else needs to come off the books. There's no point once you're already mandating everything that's already mandated and then some. If you enact a registry, the idea of NFA registered guns becomes obsolete, because everything is now an NFA registered gun.

My principle objection to a registry is a philosophical one. I don't want to register my CAR, much less my guns which certain people(yes, I know you're not one of them, and I'm not trying to say you are) would just love to snatch. It's not even paranoia, there are always a few posters who propose that all guns need to be banned, full stop. And I dislike the idea of federal registries for pretty much anything. They're just not my scene.

[Sociobiology]

because there is a gray area that can be debated.


regulation cannot function without a registry otherwise a police officer have to take your word for it that a firearm was purchased legally, which means there s no point of having a permit.
imagine if police could not check and see if your drivers licence was valid.



well most of them would become obsolete.


yeah thats never going to happen, and should never happen, tomorrow someone might invent something unaccounted for.

Unless there is a radical creation that lies entirely otside the bounds of science fiction, it's really hard to come up with something unaccounted for. Whether your gun shoots dakka, bolts, lasers, N/CPBs, or what have ye, it remains at base a gun.

but not a firearm, which is what laws are made for because there is no legal definition of gun.

and the real gray area is what is reasonable, is hitting a 1 meter target at 90 yards reasonable or is hitting the same target at 110 yards reasonable?

You can even include an all future weapons category, just to be on the safe side.

no you can't, you cannot predict all future innovation, tomorrow some one could invent a gun that shoots itself, or tags it bullets with your DNA, or is an actual non-lethal device.

For when we finally get personal laser rifles. Because we were promised laser rifles, dammit.

why would you want one? The performance would be horrible compared to a rifle.

Most of them would not become obsolete, all of them would. Everything up to and including the NFA would be so much useless paper. If you're going to make people jump through these sorts of hoops, everything else needs to come off the books. There's no point once you're already mandating everything that's already mandated and then some. If you enact a registry, the idea of NFA registered guns becomes obsolete, because everything is now an NFA registered gun.

but rescinding individual state laws that are stricter would be considered by many equally off the table. NFA covers things that are not covered in this bill/idea, like importation and individual firearm categories.
much of NFA would likely disappear because that's how future acts work, but other parts like what qualifies as a handgun would likely stand.

My principle objection to a registry is a philosophical one. I don't want to register my CAR, much less my guns which certain people(yes, I know you're not one of them, and I'm not trying to say you are) would just love to snatch. It's not even paranoia, there are always a few posters who propose that all guns need to be banned, full stop.

And?
there are ones that say everyone should be issued a gun, there will always be extreme positions, especially on the internet.
What you check is the statistics and neither position make up a significant portion of the population.

And I dislike the idea of federal registries for pretty much anything. They're just not my scene.

disliking something and recognizing it as necessary are two different things, I dislike that dropouts can vote, but I would never say they don't have a right to vote. indeed I would fight for them keeping that right.
many reasonable acts are unappealing, because one is reached by logic and the other is not.
a registry for discreet objects that are regulated via permit, is absolutely necessary for effective regulation.

[Alekera]

I would generally oppose it.

Unless they loosened the ATF gun laws along with it (no full-auto, no SBRs, no SBSs, no suppressors, etc, without a $200 ATF tax stamp)

[Sociobiology]

I would generally oppose it.

Unless they loosened the ATF gun laws along with it (no full-auto, no SBRs, no SBSs, no suppressors, etc, without a $200 ATF tax stamp)

why is this law bad?
as it stands most of those things would require additional endowments and thus additional costs.

[Sidhae]

Background checks and examinations before issuing a permit are the standard practice in my country. In addition to the described procedures, one applying for a permit must demonstrate a legitimate reason to own a firearm (most firearm licenses being issued for hunters, self-defense weapons being a strong minority). Every firearm a person owns must be registered with the local police precinct, which may send an official to inspect how well the weapon keeping regulations are observed. These regulations specify that a firearm may only be kept in a safe specifically designed and installed for this purpose.

Civilians are also restricted to semi-automatic firearms not exceeding 9mm caliber (with the exception of hunting pieces).

If one is charged with a criminal offense or an administrative offense involving substance abuse, the license is suspended and may be revoked entirely.

In other words, things are kept pretty tight here, but then there isn't much use in owning a piece either.

Needless to say, violent crimes involving guns are a rarity in my place, and most of them involve illegal firearms, since no criminal in his right mind would use a gun legally registered to his name. That, of course, hasn't prevented robbers and murderers from using more... imaginative means to accomplish their crimes, so I don't think there would be much of a change in crime rates if these laws were relaxed a bit.