Gun Permit

[Greed and Death]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. None of this is my actual opinion and I personally find it rather ridiculous, but I'm interested in counter-arguments [please be more specific than just 'that's stupid' {though honestly I agree with that point}]
What if America is invaded? Then we'll need firearm-bearing civilians, provided that they're well trained and not psychotic. In that regards your proposal is sound, but if the Enemy were to crack the registries, they could hunt down possible Partisan resistance groups within their occupation zones.
In Bosnia during the Bosnian War, the Army was severely deficient and had to be supported heavily by armed civilians to defend their homes and families. A UN arms embargo effectively deprived the Bosnians from arming themselves for self-defense.
Another perhaps more [relatively more!] applicable example is that of partisan warfare. If the Enemy [god I sound absurd. Devil's Advocate...] manages to push the army back and occupy a significant area, the Civilian population must do everything within its power to combat the occupiers. If the Enemy can track down all gun owners, then they'll be able to nip this in the bud very effectively, more so if they also arrest and/or execute the firearms holders [as the bulk of the people with the basic know-how of how to at the very least manufacture rudimentary firearms for the Resistance will be removed].

On a more serious note, it's not terribly difficult to manufacture simple guns. Actually, a huge problem your proposed law will encounter will be the fact that parts kit- rifles without recievers- will be readily bought and sold. An AR-15 type rifle is very easy to assemble without tools, if a black-market source of receivers [which can potentially be manufactured illicitly to avoid licensing issues] can be found. A much more basic example is that of the STEN-type gun, which can be manufactured very easily. Yes, it jams like hell, and it's much less effective than other guns, but it's still a gun.

and my argument for the latter is it works in every country that does it, completely home made guns are not a big problem in practice.

Go to Danao city, the illegal firearms makers were making weapons for so long that the government just gave up and legalized the improvised weapons trade there. They make good weapons too, easily equal to what they are copying.

[Big Jim P]

well we do have the option of an endorsement system, I was thinking basic long arms and perhaps handguns on the basic permit.
But I have no problem in doing separate endorsements for shotgun, handgun, ect.

and replacing the current stamp tax on manufacturers would go a long way to paying for this.

Seems to me that if purchasing firearms is going to depend on proving you can handle them safely then it should work only for firearms of reasonably similar operation.

this is why some explanation is important, I thought you were against making private sellers do this.

Don't worry, I'm not in a rush or anything.

well sellers are what I am most worried about and their records are not necessarily protected in this wording.

Protected from whom?

and dealers would be a whole different can of worms.

Are dealers not sellers?

well as an example your tax records cannot be accessed without a warrant, but law enforcement usually has no problem getting a warrant to check on people under reasonable suspicion.

Which doesn't mean that they should need a warrant to look up what guns you own, what guns you've been buying, or what guns you've been selling. Because guns and taxes are different things.

Yes, but not requiring a warrant for gun records is a violation of personal rights as well. Until you are under suspicion of criminal activity, you activity is none of law enforcements business.

[Yes Im Biop]

SO far the Law's are Good as is. But the Class 3 shit need's to be loosened up a bit.

[Liriena]

I agree with your idea...but it should not be a lifetime permit. It should have an expiration date (say, 5 or 10 years after being issued), and then you'd have to take a practical exam again.

It should also include an eyesight and psychological examination.

[Sociobiology]

Seems to me that if purchasing firearms is going to depend on proving you can handle them safely then it should work only for firearms of reasonably similar operation.

sure makes sense.

Don't worry, I'm not in a rush or anything.

just to warn you I will be away for several hours soon, I have a forge I want to use now that I fixed it and the weather is nice.

Protected from whom?

search

Are dealers not sellers?

but only a subset of them

Which doesn't mean that they should need a warrant to look up what guns you own, what guns you've been buying, or what guns you've been selling. Because guns and taxes are different things.

[/quote]
well I'm not big on letting the government check much in the way of private information about anybody for anything without demonstrating a reason.
illegal search and all that.

[Big Jim P]

SO far the Law's are Good as is. But the Class 3 shit need's to be loosened up a bit.

Add a class 3 endorsement to the license.

[Big Jim P]

I agree with your idea...but it should not be a lifetime permit. It should have an expiration date (say, 5 or 10 years after being issued), and then you'd have to take a practical exam again.

It should also include an eyesight and psychological examination.

The psych exam is already covered. Eyesight, I agree with. Why the renewal requirement?

[Liriena]

I agree with your idea...but it should not be a lifetime permit. It should have an expiration date (say, 5 or 10 years after being issued), and then you'd have to take a practical exam again.

It should also include an eyesight and psychological examination.

The psych exam is already covered. Eyesight, I agree with. Why the renewal requirement?

People get old, health issues can arise as time goes by.

[Vareiln]

A permit that needs renewing. ¹


Rather. You want this permit to be good for any firearm, so presumably your afternoon class and examinations will be covering every extant class of firearm. I doubt $15 would even cover the paper targets.²


Per the above, the cost of teaching people how to use every kind of firearm and testing them on them would either cost vastly more than $15 and take far longer than an afternoon, or you're going to let people buy rifles and shotguns and things normally mounted on A-10 Thunderbolts on the basis that they safely operated a revolver once. And those are both rather absurd positions.³


For tracking transaction statistics and flagging suspicious purchase patterns. ⁴


My objection was requiring a warrant to access the record of sales.⁵

1: Why require renewal? Firearms technology doesn't change that quickly?
2: As long as the cost doesn't start to interfere with everyone's right to bear arms, then the amount can be adjusted to reflect cost.
3:Covered by multiple endorsements on one license. Similar to car, motorcycle and commercial endorsements on a drivers license.
4:Why would this be necessary, and how would it not be an infringement on personal rights?
5:A warrant would have to be a requirement, otherwise we are infringing on personal rights.

For the first one(I can't answer the rest for him/her), I think it's more or less to determine if the person is still fit to own a gun, rather than reeducate them.

[Sociobiology]

I agree with your idea...but it should not be a lifetime permit. It should have an expiration date (say, 5 or 10 years after being issued), and then you'd have to take a practical exam again.

I'm not really committed on way or the other on this.
It should also include an eyesight and psychological examination.

well background checks have the latter.

as for eyesight
I'm blind in one eye and wear glasses (nearsighted) and I can still but a bullet exactly where I want it.

maybe a restriction if you are blind.

[Big Jim P]

The psych exam is already covered. Eyesight, I agree with. Why the renewal requirement?

People get old, health issues can arise as time goes by.

I see your point.

[Liriena]

I agree with your idea...but it should not be a lifetime permit. It should have an expiration date (say, 5 or 10 years after being issued), and then you'd have to take a practical exam again.

I'm not really committed on way or the other on this.
It should also include an eyesight and psychological examination.

well background checks have the latter.

as for eyesight
1) I'm blind in one eye and wear glasses (nearsighted) and I can still but a bullet exactly where I want it.

2) maybe a restriction if you are blind.

1) That's great...but not all people are as skilled as you with impaired sight.
2) Obviously.

[Great Nepal]

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 appropriate number of safety classes based on professional assessment of indivudal 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 any non-traffic offences.

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 endorsed for said purpose..

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

With ammendment (in red), I am all for it and hope UK implements it along with US hence abolishing ridiculous "good reason" rule here.

[Big Jim P]

1: Why require renewal? Firearms technology doesn't change that quickly?
2: As long as the cost doesn't start to interfere with everyone's right to bear arms, then the amount can be adjusted to reflect cost.
3:Covered by multiple endorsements on one license. Similar to car, motorcycle and commercial endorsements on a drivers license.
4:Why would this be necessary, and how would it not be an infringement on personal rights?
5:A warrant would have to be a requirement, otherwise we are infringing on personal rights.

For the first one(I can't answer the rest for him/her), I think it's more or less to determine if the person is still fit to own a gun, rather than reeducate them.

That would be covered under the revocation clause.

[Sociobiology]

well background checks have the latter.

as for eyesight
1) I'm blind in one eye and wear glasses (nearsighted) and I can still but a bullet exactly where I want it.

2) maybe a restriction if you are blind.

1) That's great...but not all people are as skilled as you with impaired sight.

that's why there is a practical exam.

[Vareiln]

The psych exam is already covered. Eyesight, I agree with. Why the renewal requirement?

People get old, health issues can arise as time goes by.

Maybe if it's a health issue that can be easily corrected(Say, slightly poor eyesight that can be corrected by wearing contacts or glasses), then perhaps the permit could be renewed but be modified to note such. From there, say, if the person goes to purchase optics, they could be allowed to purchase special optics that can be used with glasses or contacts or have lenses that correct for it already.
...
The more I think about this, this could actually be a very good thing for firearm owners.

[Individual]

Just make it looser. All people should be allowed to own guns as they please.

[Sociobiology]

For the first one(I can't answer the rest for him/her), I think it's more or less to determine if the person is still fit to own a gun, rather than reeducate them.

That would be covered under the revocation clause.

several places do this, It escapes me which one but I know one state actually requires doctors to contact the police is patient is diagnosed with certain mental disorders.

[Big Jim P]

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 appropriate number of safety classes based on professional assessment of indivudal 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 any non-traffic offences.

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 endorsed for said purpose..

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

With ammendment (in red), I am all for it and hope UK implements it along with US hence abolishing ridiculous "good reason" rule here.

Many non-traffic offenses would have no bearing on gun ownership. Only violent and/or firearms related offenses should be considered for revocation.

[Sociobiology]

Just make it looser. All people should be allowed to own guns as they please.

what in my proposal is stopping you?

[Yes Im Biop]

SO far the Law's are Good as is. But the Class 3 shit need's to be loosened up a bit.

Add a class 3 endorsement to the license.

And remove the 200$ Tax Stamp and Multi Month wait.

[Great Nepal]

Many non-traffic offenses would have no bearing on gun ownership. Only violent and/or firearms related offenses should be considered for revocation.

Yes however, loosing one's firearms will be a incentive to not commit offence so its less about guns and more about reducing crime.

[Liriena]

People get old, health issues can arise as time goes by.

I see your point.

If a man begins to suffer from osteoarthritis or similar problems (let alone neurological disabilities, like MS or Parkinson's, or the loss of limbs) a few years after initially being granted the permit, leaving him unchecked could be a major risk.

Also, in my country, they ask particularly elderly people (IIRC, above age 75) to bring with them a certificate from their neurologist to prove that there is nothing neurological that might incapacitate them from driving a car. I see no reason why the same should not be required for elderly people renewing a gun permit.

[Sociobiology]

With ammendment (in red), I am all for it and hope UK implements it along with US hence abolishing ridiculous "good reason" rule here.

Many non-traffic offenses would have no bearing on gun ownership. Only violent and/or firearms related offenses should be considered for revocation.

i believe I even worded it as such.

[Great Nepal]

The psych exam is already covered. Eyesight, I agree with. Why the renewal requirement?

People get old, health issues can arise as time goes by.

Doctors would report this and their licence will be revoked under revocation clause.