Gun Permit

[Gun Manufacturers]

I agree with most of your list except that generally tazers can't kill people without prolonged use, far more than would be used in a simple robbery.

True. We could try an information campaign for criminals to use tazers to threaten people with, in order to reduce the number of deaths resulting from robberies.

Guns for tazers program, anyone?

I'd trade in my .22 starter pistol (which I paid $25 for, and had to fill out a 4473, CT DPS-3C form, and get a NICS check) for an M26C taser. Of course, it would probably sit in the box, in the same spot in my gun safe that the starter pistol (which is in its box) currently occupies.

[Lemanrussland]

It seems reasonable to me, I would be perfectly fine with that, along with a requirement to conceal firearms if you want to carry them in a public place (open carry, in an inappropriate situation/place, is extremely disruptive and causes more trouble than it's worth, in my opinion), and restrictions on so-called "destructive devices". I would also support forensically fingerprinting guns so that bullets from crime scenes can be traced back to the gun which fired them.

The great danger of registration, at least among more extreme gun rights advocates, is that it's an avenue for future seizure. I recognize that concern. In an ideal world, where we could leave gun control limited to that, I would definitely support this sort of set up.

Destructive devices ARE restricted. You can't just walk in, buy one at your local gun store, and walk out with it. It takes getting an NFA tax stamp from the ATF (which involves paperwork, a background check, a $200 check for the tax stamp, and several months of waiting) before you can own one.

I know that, and I support their restriction.

[Llamalandia]

It's been so long since I bought a new one, I flat out don't remember.

ATF offers e-form 4473s for download if anyone feels like checking. I believe the SSN box says that its optional but will help in positive identification, meaning less likelihood of a false positive.

Edit: From the ATF 4473 FAQ
Q: Is a Social Security card a proper means of identification for purchasing a firearm from an FFL?

No. A Social Security card, alien registration card, or military identification alone does not contain sufficient information to identify a firearms purchaser. However, a purchaser may be identified by any combination of government-issued documents which together establish all of the required information: Name, residence address, date of birth, and photograph of the holder.

No SSN it seems.

Right so if I make a convincing fake id for john doe at 123 fake street new york ny born 21 years ago presumably there would be no reason for a gun purchase to be flagged by the NICS system, of course lying on a federal form is a felony, but if you're illegally buying a gun I doubt you care too much.

[Gun Manufacturers]

It always struck me as strange since if the government decides to seize firearms not having a database is hardly going to impede them.

A lot harder to bury your guns in a container and say you have no guns when the government has a database.
Sort of like how the IRA did things.

That's why, if it's in a database, you tell them you lost it in a tragic boating accident.

[Llamalandia]

I think that people should own guns but there should be some guidlines before the purchase of a firearm is official. My recommendations:

1. The person should go through a basic safety course with the firearm they intend to buy and learn the basics of being a responsible gun owner (for example: muzzle control, proper trigger discipline, etc....This would reduce the rate of firearms related accidents and stupidity. The gun that kills the most people is the one that is unloaded )

2. Psychological evaluations on the person intending to buy the weapon (Most whackjobs shooting up schools and theaters don't have a previous criminal record, allowing them to pass background checks.A psych eval would be more effective at weeding the nutjobs out.)

1. Unloaded guns don't kill people, people kill people (loaded guns people believe are unloaded is what I think you're trying to say here.)

2. If you're to crazy to own a gun you're too crazy to be allowed free in public. in my opinion.

[Common Territories]

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.

I agree with most of this but areas in the red. No to permit to buy from private sellers (not including gun shows and internet) and a defiant NO to gun registrations. Besides; records of sales from stores are kept actually and remain for years or months depending on states.

[Lemanrussland]

Also, Gun Manufacturers. I have a side question about California gun laws.

In California, .60 caliber is the legal threshold where something becomes a "destructive device". 12.7×99mm NATO (.50 BMG) rifles are specifically banned here in California. What about a 14.5x114mm (.57 caliber) rifle, like a PTRD? Are those legal, or do they break the federal DD threshold (.50 BMG), or California law?

If they are legal, that is really stupid, since 14.5x114mm ammunition has twice the muzzle energy as 12.7x99mm ammunition.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Yes you can.

Not legally you can't. Unless you're going to do it in your driveway or if you have a learner's permit.

My parents let my sisters and I drive the pickup in the yard (my parents had almost 2 acres) before we got our licenses. Of course, we usually weren't joyriding, we were usually moving firewood, stones, a rusted truck axle buried in the ground by the previous owner, etc around. Also, I drove a farm tractor on the road (towing a full wagon-load of hay) before I got my license.

[Llamalandia]

Actually it occurs to me we already have a permit system similar to what you propose in place...its called the Constitution. If you're not a felon or a crazy person it permits you to buy a gun.

[Greed and Death]

Driving a car on public roads is different from owning a gun in your home.
A license to carry in public is a reasonable compromise that treats gun ownership like car ownership, and look the states already have that.

Without a gun license, you shouldn't be allowed to operate a gun. You can't operate(drive) a car without a license. Both can pose a danger to others if used improperly.

So own a gun but not operate excepting an emergency, much like a car. Also if you have private land you can operate a vehicle without a license on that land.
Operating a gun would likely be carrying it around for self defense. Owning a gun would be keeping it in your home, and taking it to a range ( private land) to squeeze off a few rounds.

And guess what excepting Alaska that is the current law with guns.

[The Steel Magnolia]

I've never been a "ban all guns!" type of girl, and I'm actually interested in buying a handgun for personal defense in a few years. I'm living in Canada currently but also have residence in California and I'll probably live and work there in the future. I know next to nothing about firearms mind you, but I've faced enough violence in my life to want some form of protection.

I'm also for pretty extensive levels of regulatory activity, but I'm pretty cool with most aspects of your proposal. The only objection I have is to the warrant requirement for accessing records of individual firearm registration and tracking.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Also, Gun Manufacturers. I have a side question about California gun laws.

In California, .60 caliber is the legal threshold where something becomes a "destructive device". 12.7×99mm NATO (.50 BMG) rifles are specifically banned here in California. What about a 14.5x114mm (.57 caliber) rifle, like a PTRD? Are those legal, or do they break the federal DD threshold (.50 BMG), or California law?

If they are legal, that is really stupid, since 14.5x114mm ammunition has twice the muzzle energy as 12.7x99mm ammunition.

I'm not well versed on California law, I live in Connecticut. I do know that over 1/2" bore is considered a destructive device by the federal government though.

[Llamalandia]

I've never been a "ban all guns!" type of girl, and I'm actually interested in buying a handgun for personal defense in a few years. I'm living in Canada currently but also have residence in California and I'll probably live and work there in the future. I know next to nothing about firearms mind you, but I've faced enough violence in my life to want some form of protection.

I'm also for pretty extensive levels of regulatory activity, but I'm pretty cool with most aspects of your proposal. The only objection I have is to the warrant requirement for accessing records of individual firearm registration and tracking.

Why it seems like a warrant would protect peoples privacy but still allow for legitimate law enforcement access as the need arose? Warrants aren't actually that hard to get when there is already sufficient evidence of criminality.

[The Horror Channel]

I'm all for a national registry, and, like sex offenders, i'd like that list to be accessible to the public.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I'm all for a national registry, and, like sex offenders, i'd like that list to be accessible to the public.

What business is it of anyone to know what firearms I own?

And nice job equating sex offenders with firearms owners.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I'm all for a national registry, and, like sex offenders, i'd like that list to be accessible to the public.

I'm all for a national registry of people's ethnicity, religion and political philosophy, and, like sex offenders, i'd like that list to be accessible to the public.

Wait...No...That's stupid.

[Hathradic States]

No. Guns should only be for the military, hunters and police. Period.

Why is that? is their something wrong with me and my buddies going out and blowing through a few hundred rounds of ammo on a weekend?

[The Planet of Orran]

I feel the need to ask, does anyone ever consider black market / illegal gun purchases when these debates come up, or just what's in their faces? Such a thing is a problem when your nation thrives off of export and import.

[Dictatorship Of Serdaristan]

I do not support this.
A background check before purchasing anything deemed by the BATFE to be a firearm should be mandatory.

Gun crime can be drastically lowered BY ENFORCING THE LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE, not by stripping rights from law abiding citizens, while criminals continue to, yep you guessed it, BREAK LAWS.

[Fireye]

I'm all for a national registry, and, like sex offenders, i'd like that list to be accessible to the public.

I'm going to not get angry at you comparing me to a sex offender. it's too early in the morning for me to blow my top like that.

Instead I'll point out just how POORLY run the Sex offender list is, and how stupid the concept of the sex offender list is.

If he's still a threat to society, he should still be in jail, not on a list.

[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.

I agree with most of this but areas in the red. No to permit to buy from private sellers (not including gun shows and internet) and a defiant NO to gun registrations. Besides; records of sales from stores are kept actually and remain for years or months depending on states.

so why should private sales be immune to the law?

[Sociobiology]

except guns are not effective theft prevention because criminals tend to rob houses when no one is home, in fact they make up the majority of cases, and even when they do rob ab occupied house it is usually under the mistaken belief the house is empty.
putting a protected by gun sticker on your house is a big sign saying this house has something worth stealing, namely the guns.
As for the government violent resistance would likely get guns confiscated, not the opposite, see every armed standoff with law enforcement in the last 50 years. Once you abandon legal methods of resolving conflict you loss public support quite quickly.

No point was that once the decision to confiscate gets made it may be hard to implement as gun owners can simply shoot the people trying to do the confiscating.

see Australia. It can be implemented just fine.
And again if they turn violent they deserve to have their guns taken from them by force.

As to robbery, a gun helps when a robber breaks in and believes the home is empty and in fact it is not and he gets a nasty surprise,

the same scare he would get if you had a baseball bat, or are referring to being shot which would be and should be illegal.

[Sociobiology]

ATF offers e-form 4473s for download if anyone feels like checking. I believe the SSN box says that its optional but will help in positive identification, meaning less likelihood of a false positive.

Edit: From the ATF 4473 FAQ
Q: Is a Social Security card a proper means of identification for purchasing a firearm from an FFL?

No. A Social Security card, alien registration card, or military identification alone does not contain sufficient information to identify a firearms purchaser. However, a purchaser may be identified by any combination of government-issued documents which together establish all of the required information: Name, residence address, date of birth, and photograph of the holder.

No SSN it seems.

Right so if I make a convincing fake id for john doe at 123 fake street new york ny born 21 years ago presumably there would be no reason for a gun purchase to be flagged by the NICS system, of course lying on a federal form is a felony, but if you're illegally buying a gun I doubt you care too much.

so then my proposal seems like a solution since you could not do this with a separate permit.
actual licences could easily ask for more information and should.

[Sociobiology]

I do not support this.
A background check before purchasing anything deemed by the BATFE to be a firearm should be mandatory.

you do realize that is not the current law, right?

Gun crime can be drastically lowered BY ENFORCING THE LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE, not by stripping rights from law abiding citizens, while criminals continue to, yep you guessed it, BREAK LAWS.

so why make laws right, legalize theft, ect.

[Galloism]

No point was that once the decision to confiscate gets made it may be hard to implement as gun owners can simply shoot the people trying to do the confiscating.

see Australia. It can be implemented just fine.
And again if they turn violent they deserve to have their guns taken from them by force.

As to robbery, a gun helps when a robber breaks in and believes the home is empty and in fact it is not and he gets a nasty surprise,

the same scare he would get if you had a baseball bat, or are referring to being shot which would be and should be illegal.

There it is again.

Killing an intruder by blunt force trauma to the head: a-ok.

Killing an intruder with a firearm: should be illegal.

Do people who are beaten to death thank the heavens as they die? "Thank God it wasn't with a gun. That would be horrible!"