Posted on 04/28/2018 12:11:13 PM PDT by Simon Green
Jon Stokes has a post up at Politico this morning, A Gun Nut’s Guide to Gun Control That Works. He’s noted the post-Parkland climate that’s seen states like Vermont and Florida put new restrictions on firearms purchasing and ownership, as well as proposals to repeal the Second Amendment or outlaw all semi-auto firearms and is proposing a fix. A grand bargain that’s designed to satisfy both gun owners and gun controllers by getting each side to give up something.
His big idea: create a federal gun owner’s license that would enable anyone who goes through the process to possess semi-automatic firearms. Once you’re licensed, you no longer have to undergo a background check when you buy a gun. Private sales included. No matter where you live.
A federal license for all semi-automatic firearms would rest on two simple and well-defined concepts, one technical and one legal:
1) A “semi-automatic” firearm is one that fires a single round for each pull of the trigger, automatically reloading in between each shot until the ammo is depleted.
2) “Possession” is a legal concept from the drug war that implies that a person has a contraband item “on or about one’s person,” or has “control” over the item, perhaps by having it in a motor vehicle or in a home.
Because both of these things—“possession” and “semi-automatic weapons”—are easy to define, they’re easy to regulate.
Combine these two concepts with a thorough but reasonable vetting process, and you have the makings of a straightforward, effective system for keeping the most lethal class of weapons out of the hands of bad actors, while simultaneously lifting the burden of arbitrary weapon bans and federal red tape from law-abiding gun owners.
Don’t want to submit to federal licensing? Fine. You can still buy and possess bolt action rifles and revolvers, but would have to fill out a 4473 for each purchase. He’s a little fuzzy on the status of lever action rifles and pump shotguns, but swing with it for a minute.
If you weren’t a license holder, then simple possession of any semi-auto weapon would be a felony. Don’t have one on your person, or in your car or home. 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.
In exchange for this new regime, all states will have to drop their “feature-based” bans on guns like AR-15s, “high capacity” magazines and the like. In other words, If you live in Pennsylvania and drive across the Delaware with an AR or a 17-round magazine in your trunk, you won’t be risking a few years in jail. If you’re hired by a California-based company and need to relocate, you can take your AK and and your full capacity G17 with you.
What if you own semi-automatics now, but don’t want to go through federal licensing? Again, he’s fuzzy, though he throws out a possible three to five-year “grace period,” during which you could presumably sell or, uh, turn in your semi-auto guns (barring any unfortunate boating accidents, of course).
Gun controllers would give up their state and locally-based gun control laws. All legal firearms would be legal in all 50 states. But the anti-gun side would get, effectively, universal background checks. A full-blown, probably TSA-Pre-level check for the federal semi-auto license, and standard NICS checks on all firearms sales, including private sales, for non-licensed individuals.
Stokes leaves much left to be decided.
There are a lot of important details to be worked out, like the status of pump-action and lever-action guns, or the specific requirements for getting a license and keeping it current, or due process requirements for restoring a revoked license. Gun control advocates might want any gun that can fire without reloading included in the licensing regime (pump- and lever-action guns), and gun rights advocates might want current federal restrictions on suppressors and short-barreled rifles dropped. These types of issues could surely be ironed out, as long as we can agree on the basic framework of trading all federal and state bans and registries for a national semi-auto licensing regime.
Oh, and about the requirement for that federal license . . .
Yeah, we’re going to fight over that. A lot, probably. But that fight would be way more reality-centered and sane than our current fights over pistol grips and barrel shrouds and telescoping stocks.
I’m not sure where that optimism comes from.
What about New Jersey’s ban on hollow point ammunition? Dunno. That would have to be “worked out,” too. Would SBRs and suppressors be de-regulated? Dunno. Maybe.
What if President Shannon Watts pushes through a may-issue regime, effectively putting an end to anyone obtaining a federal gun license?
This would be a concern, but it’s already a concern. We may have to rely on the courts for protection. The gun control side is mistaken if it thinks it’s going to immediately begin to dictate entirely new terms of American gun ownership unilaterally in November. President Donald Trump is in the process of packing the federal courts with conservative judges, and he may get another Supreme Court pick before he leaves office. So even if gun controllers can get Congress to move their way, there’s no guarantee that new laws will survive the inevitable court challenges. (Justice Clarence Thomas recently hinted that he thinks state and local assault weapon bans are unconstitutional.) Plus, there’s no possibility of a gun registry under this scheme, so no matter how bad it gets there’s even less of a threat of confiscation than there is under the current system.
I’m not sure that relaying on the courts will give gun owners much comfort.
Methinks that, despite an admirable effort, Stokes has drastically underestimated both the vehemence with which the pro-gun side will resist any federal-level encroachment on their rights (the slippery slope) as well as the intransigence of the gun controllers’ desire to hang onto their strict prohibitions they’ve put in place in states like California, New York, New Jersey and Maryland.
Plus, even assuming this or a similar grand bargain can be struck, the next time an Adam Lanza or a Nikolas Cruz does what it is they do, all bets will be off. Whether or not the shooter was federally licensed, you’ll hear all the same calls from all the same people to rid America of the scourge of these weapons of war.
Or am I too cynical?
Merely preliminary “common sense” steps towards the desired “common sense” confiscation.
Hell no.
“Give them nothing, but take from them, everything.”
-Leonidas
~W
Interesting how he goes into a detailed description of what semi-auto and possession means. But no clue on what “thorough and reasonable” is.
How about we just don’t infringe?
Moronic idea worthy of Chuck Schumer. You don’t need a license to exercise a right. If you need a license it isn’t a right. It’s a privilege. And privileges can be revoked at any time for any reason or no reason at all. This dude can go suck on a cholla branch.
Gun control that “works” to do what? You need a federal license to exercise a Constitutional right? I’m sorry, but no sale.
>>Oh, and about the requirement for that federal license . . .
>>Yeah, we’re going to fight over that. A lot, probably. But that fight would be way more reality-centered and sane than our current fights over pistol grips and barrel shrouds and telescoping stocks.
Let’s just called everyone who currently owns a semi-auto a DREAMER and give them a free license, no questions asked,....and throw in a new AR-15 and 10,000 rds of ammo too..because, ya know, DREAMER!
But then of course if you don’t want to comply such as Chicago gangs how do words written down on paper make people physically comply? Talk to women who’ve survived attacks by their ex bf/husbands under a court order to stay away from them; words are just words.
The second amendment is a preexistence right. Lets license politicians and criminals first and see if that works.
I have a proposal for you, John.
How about you f*ck off and die.
All this is predicated on the belief that gun control advocates aren’t liars who’ll backstab and confiscate/ban guns or otherwise misuse or break the law.
“Gun control that “works” to do what? You need a federal license to exercise a Constitutional right? I’m sorry, but no sale.”
Besides, those who have a CHL are not required to go through a background check anyway.
Jon Stokes’ gun control idea has all the value of used toilet paper.
Oh, I see. Just following the way the 2nd amendment is written. It’s a sub paragraph located right next to where it says abortion on demand is a right. My take-——uh, NO!
--see-I did read the articles---
NOPE
Sounds like one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Where does fundamental right fit in. It doesn’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.