ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO REDESIGN THE GAS CAN!
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?
“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.”
I can’t believe this buffoon actually cites the “drug war” to promote his licensing scheme (which is the worst camel nose to ever get under a tent; why would we barter away our rights in exchange for not infringing our rights?).
Earth to Idiot: the “drug war” is a comprehensive failure. The US is awash with meth, synthetic and natural marijuana, “bath salts”, etc., 116 people are DYING every day from opioid abuse, billions of dollars are sent out of the country, millions of Americans are unemployable bums due to drugs and others criminals who deal in forbidden goods, precisely because bans make them valuable. The “gun violence” in America is fueled by drug trafficking gangs, and addicts committing robbery, identity fraud, etc. to get money for dope.
Does he think that criminal gangs wouldn’t move into any niche where “banned” or restricted licensed possession creates a demand?
.
>> “Gun Control That Works” <<
Target Practice!
.
.
They already know where all the post-68 guns are.
.
Anyone who doesn't get a federal religion license can attend other churches that have not had a follower engage in terror attacks.
Also, if you want to write articles, or advocate, or preach for one of the religions identified as related to terror attacks, then you must also obtain a religion license.
There will be a grace period, of say 3 to 5 years where existing members of religions identified as related to terror attacks can still keep their religious books, and pray in their homes before they must obtain their religion license.
Once we see how it works for religion we can consider how it would work for the second amendment.
There must be NO laws for possessing, manufacturing, or selling firearms. None. Anything else is an attempt to take them or prevent their lawful use against tyranny.
Yep, so I presume people will be able to get a license for their kids, neighbors, babysitters, etc.
The author's ideas are beyond stupid.
First it would make ownership of my existing semi-automatic firearms illegal. Not sure they can retroactively do that without compensating me. A bit gray, but lots of folks would object.
No for the real objection......”...a thorough but reasonable vetting process, ...” I just can't envision representatives from California, New York, New Jersey, Chicago agreeing to any vetting process that would not be extreme or sandbagging things until such a time that they can change the vetting rules and require periodic re-licensing and re-vetting for a punitive cost, say a couple thousand dollars or some impossible insurance requirement.
This will never fly
What part od “shall not infringe” do they not get?
If every time they rant both sides give up something all they have to do is keep ranting till they can kill us with no risk.
It is what happens every time. No wonder they no longer teach history, communism omly wins when people are stupid enough to cut their own throats.
Here’s my big idea; No background checks. Just redefine who is a “prohibited person.”
A prohibited person is anyone who has a violent or serious conviction, including drug sales. I’m not worried Martha Stewart is gonna come gunning for me. A prohibited person meeting the above goes to fed prison 5 years for being found with a firearm.
People adjudicated mentally deficient go to prison 1 year.
People found armed and drunk or on drugs have firearm(s) impounded for 30 days
If any above are committing a crime while armed, the above will apply in addition to other charges.
How about “no”
But there are, and lots of them. That's not going to change.
Unfortunately.
Shall not be infringed!
No
F... off and die.
Second that thought. (Don’t you just love the cutsie spelling Jon instead of John)
Such a b-s article.
What part of “shall not infringe” do these rodents not understand.
That’s my thought exactly. What’s even worse is that people can 3d print either the gun or parts to assemble a gun with.
Although he is the one who sounds delusional, he’s basing his idea on the thought that we, the ones who value the Second Amendment, are actually delusional.
Of course we won’t accept anything so stupid
Given the damage fake, fraudulent and deliberately misleading Journalism does to the very fabric of our society, it time for common sense Journalism reform. Bad journalism destroys lives and careers every day in this country. It time to put a stop to it.
We need a federal Journalism license to keep the News Media out of the hands of bad actors and in the hands of responsible Journalists.
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.