Posted on 12/12/2002 11:37:15 AM PST by 45Auto
Gun control is out of control!
One of the foulest phrases I can think of right now is ‘firearms registration.’ Since this whole thing began back a few years ago, I’ve been laughing – but it’s not so funny anymore. The powers that be are actually going to go through with this hair-brained idea - despite all the cost, opposition and common sense applied against it. Even if one doesn’t take into account the rights of all the gun owners who never would have broken the law until they refused to register, this plan would have fallen through on the basis that it WON’T WORK!
I’ve covered the stories for years – wife shot by husband; criminal shot by criminal; passersby shot by lunatic; anybody shot by crack addict.
I can honestly say that gun registration wouldn’t have changed the outcome of any of them. Why? Just take the time to ask the people who’ve actually been involved in shootings. Take for example, the case of the man who lost his mind when he came home from sea early to find his wife and cousin in a "compromising position." He took out his hunting rifle and shot both of them. Police found him at the scene with the weapon draped across his lap.
I asked him if there might have been a different outcome had gun registration been in affect then. He stared at me as if I was a journalist who had just asked a really stupid question, and said, "I had never broken the law up to that point – so there wouldn’t have been a problem with me registering a gun. Would it have been different? Yes, they would have both been killed with a registered gun." Hmmm… from the mouths of cold-blooded killers.
How about the fella who lived on the wrong side of the tracks for years, and eventually ended up taking three bullets from a druggie who was desperate for his next fix? He lived to speculate about what differences firearms registration might have had in his attack.
"You don’t have a lot of experience dealing with crack addicts – do you?" he asked in between bouts of hysterical laughter. "They had the guy – they had the gun. What might have made a difference was if the Crown hadn’t swung a deal with the shooter so he’d only end up doing two years." Since that time, I’ve learned that these deals, used all too frequently in the administration of justice, may have killed more people than guns have.
Justice isn’t supposed to be a trade-off of one criminal for another… and more importantly, it’s not supposed to come at the expense of law-abiding citizens who’ve done nothing wrong!
You do not license a Constitutionally-protected right.
You do not have to get a license to pen a political article.
You do not have to get a license before you can enter a place of worship.
You do not have to get a license to speak at a political event.
You do not have to get a license before you associate with others.
What part of '...shall not be infringed.' do you not understand?
Jeez, from this example, how can anyone NOT see the moral superiroity of gun registration? </sarcasm>
AND...we still have millions of UNINSURED drivers!
AND...States do it, NOT feds
The original purpose was to raise money and NOT call it taxes
BTW..U can drive your car from Kalifornicate to New Yawk and all states honor your lisc.WHAT happened to carry laws?
Actually, he apparently killed in hot blood, if he shot them immediately.
1) the right to buy a gun without waiting, or any further checks than showing your gun license and insurance card
Already have that here in Texas.
2) the ability to carry a gun in all states
This will never happen; it's the EXACT opposite of what socialists want (read democraps)
3) the identification of licensed gun owners with registered guns as law-abiding citizens who can be trusted (they must be OK if the insurance company insured them)
DEFINATELY will not happen. Almost every cop I see has a solid "us vs them" atttitude. The cops are NOT your friends and anything they talk to you about they are fishing for an arrest.
Should we start treating guns like cars? Handgun Control, Inc. has been saying so for years, and Vice President Gore agreed in the summer of 1999. As he stated,
As President ... I will fight for a national requirement that every state issue photo licenses [for handgun buyers]....We require a license to drive a car in this nation, to keep unsafe drivers off the road.... Now we should require a license to own a handgun - so people who shouldn't have them can't get them. 4Gore further suggested that prospective licensees should have to "pass a background test, and pass a gun safety test," a plan that would cause the gun lobby to "have a fit."5
If one extended Gore's analogy between gun licenses and drivers' licenses to the proposal that guns should be generally treated like cars, it could lead to the most massive decontrol of firearms in American history. Vice President Gore's proposal seeks a high degree of administrative regulation of guns - but a closer examination of current regulations reveals that guns are already far more regulated than cars. Laws that would really treat guns more like cars would be much less restrictive than most current gun laws, and I would welcome such a result. Let us truly treat guns like cars and sweep away most existing regulations.
The first law to go would be the 1986 federal ban on manufacture of new machine guns for sale to ordinary citizens.6 Machine guns were banned because they fire much more rapidly than ordinary guns, and this high-speed potential was considered dangerous and unnecessary - since no ordinary person had a need for such a high-speed gun. We do not ban cars like Porsches just because they are high-powered and can be driven much faster than the speed limit. Even though it is much easier to exceed the speed limit in a Porsche than in a Hyundai, we let people choose their cars regardless of their potential for speeding abuse. We even allow people to buy 13,000 horsepower Pratt & Whitney Jet Cars, which seem almost deliberately designed for speeding.
Likewise, we do not ban automobiles because they are underpowered, or are made with poor quality metal. Those who want a Yugo can buy one. Under this analogy, the state-level bans on inexpensive guns7 (so-called "junk guns" or "Saturday Night Specials") and federal rules against the import of cheap guns would have to go. These laws are based on the theory that consumers should not be allowed to purchase guns made from metal that melts at too low of a temperature, because such guns are not well-made enough.
Further, if we agree with Handgun Control, Inc. President Robert Walker that we need to "treat[] guns like cars,"8 we must repeal the thousands of laws regulating the purchase of firearms and their possession on private property. The simple purchase of an automobile is subject to essentially no restrictions. When a buyer shows up at the dealer's showroom, the dealer does not conduct a background check to find out if the buyer has a conviction for vehicular homicide or drunk driving. The only "waiting period" for car purchases runs from the time of the buyer's decision to purchase to the time the salesman hands him the keys. This waiting period may last a half hour or more if the auto dealership has a great deal of paperwork, or it may be even shorter.
In contrast, several states impose a waiting period on firearms purchases of several days to several weeks.9 Furthermore, firearms are the only product in the United States for which FBI permission, via the national background check, is required for every single retail consumer purchase.10 Every time a person attempts to buy a gun, the gun store's owner must call the FBI for permission to complete the sale. If the FBI gives permission for a gun sale on Monday and the buyer returns on Tuesday to purchase a second gun, the store must call the FBI again.
Virtually no restrictions are imposed on car owners who operate their automobiles on private property. A ranch owner whose driver's license is revoked can still drive his jeep all over the ranch without penalty. Indeed, he can drink a case of beer before driving around his ranch and still enjoy the ride knowing that he is not violating a single law,11 provided that he does not injure an innocent person.
If we followed the analogy about treating guns like cars, we could abolish all laws concerning gun storage in the home, as well those banning gun possession by certain persons on private property. Current federal law outlaws gun possession, even on private property, by those previously convicted of a violent or nonviolent felony12 or a misdemeanor involving domestic violence,13 (such as two brothers having a fistfight on their front lawn thirty years ago), those dishonorably discharged from the military,14 drug users (defined by regulation as any use in the last year),15 illegal aliens,16 and various other "prohibited persons."17 Several states go even further by conditioning gun possession (or all handgun possession) on special state-issued licenses.18 If we really treated guns like cars, all of these laws would be swept away.
Most cities do prohibit property owners from storing their cars in an unsightly manner (for example, on cinder blocks in the front yard), or from parking too many cars on the public street in front of their house. Thus, gun owners will have to accept laws against leaving nonfunctional guns strewn about their front yard, and will not be allowed to leave excessive numbers of guns on the street (gun control groups frequently complain that there are "too many guns on the street").
If a person keeps a car on his own property, he can tow the car to a friend's property and drive it on that property. As long as he is merely towing the car, he needs no license and no restrictions apply. Thus, gun owners should be allowed to transport their unloaded guns to private property such as a shooting gallery for use on that property. Jurisdictions such as New York City would no longer have the power to require a separate "target permit" just to take a gun to the local pistol range.19
Supposing that the auto owner wants to use his car on public property, as most people do, a driver is required to be duly licensed. To obtain a license to drive a car anywhere in public, most states require that the licensee be at least fifteen or sixteen years of age, take a written safety test that requires an IQ of no more than eighty to pass, drive the car for an examiner, and demonstrate to the examiner that the driver knows how to operate the car and obey basic safety rules and traffic signs. The license will be revoked or suspended if the driver violates various safety rules or causes an accident while driving in public. Except in egregious cases, first or second offenses do not usually result in license revocations. Once the license is issued, it is good in every state.
Vice-President Gore appeared to focus on these driver's license requirements when discussing the need for handgun licensing, although he failed to recognize that such requirements only apply to cars used in public and not to those operated on private property. The licensing of guns touted by Gore is already in effect in thirty states, where adults with a clean record can obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun for lawful protection.20 To make the concealed handgun licensing system exactly like the driver's system would require a few tweaks, such as reducing the minimum age for a gun license (currently twenty-one or twenty-five in most states) as well as the licensing fees, which can run over $100 in many states; mandating a written exam in those few states without one; adding a practical demonstration test (currently administered in Texas but not in most other states); and making licenses valid in all states rather than in only the issuing state. Statewide validity of gun licenses could spur the proliferation of rent-a-gun stores for travelers, similar to the current rent-a-car system.21 In addition, the nineteen states that currently do not give handgun-carrying permits to every person with a clean record would have to change their laws.
Some jurisdictions require the carry licensee only to register either the type of handgun for which she was trained by a handgun instructor or the particular handguns she will carry.22 The Elbert County, Colorado, sheriff does this, as do some sheriffs in other states. Under the treat-guns-like-cars rule, an owner would have to register every gun that would be carried in public and pay an annual or semiannual registration tax. Such registration would also be required for hunting or target shooting guns used on public lands. The theory of auto registration is that once the auto is driven on public streets, it acquires a certain public character and must be registered, unlike an auto that is only used on private property. The strict "treat guns like cars" analogy from Handgun Control, Inc., would therefore support registration of guns that are carried or used in public places. Of course, once a person gets a driver's license, she can drive in any area open to the public. Thus, we would have to repeal all the laws against carrying guns within a thousand feet of a school, in bars, or on government property.23
Although legislative bodies do regulate gun design through laws about machine guns, "assault weapons," and inexpensive guns, no federal agency has the authority to impose new design standards on firearms. By contrast, federal regulators do impose a wide variety of safety rules on automobiles. Thus, the one significant way in which treating guns like cars would lead to more restrictive gun laws would be by allowing federal regulators to impose design controls on firearms. This point, made by Teret and Vernick, will be addressed in detail in Part IV. For now, it is sufficient to recognize that if we use the "treat guns like consumer products" approach to create the regulatory regime advocated by Teret and Vernick, then we would have to jettison most current gun laws that treat guns far more severely than cars or other consumer products. Almost all such additional products are less regulated than cars and require no license and registration at all, even for public use.
This isn't what the Brady Bunch wants.
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.