Let's talk about guns, a moment.

[wolven7]

mendori: YES!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7474924.stm
-dances around-

wolven: Yeah, i heard about that, earlier today.
I don't want to ban handguns. I don't like them, personally, but... for fuck's sake, can't we Require that people take proficiency tests? I mean we do it for fucking cars, and look how many people still can't do THAT right

mendori: well, to get anything other than a basic firearm, youre required to pass a proficency test
to get and keep a concealed carry license, you have to show proficiency
ditto with a dealers license
even more so with a gunsmithing certification

wolven: I mean a license, in general. No matter the type, or purpose. Complex Proposition: IF You want a Gun License, THEN you must pove yourself proficient in the use maintenance and storage of firearms.

mendori: i agree
i think it would be a good system

wolven: I don't know why people can't see it as a good compromise

mendori: however, i think it could be too easily abused by states into preventing legitimate owners from keeping their guns

wolven: It would cut to the heart of so many concerns, on all sides

mendori: ... i mean, would you take away my grandfathers hunting rifles because he cant see well? even though he never shoots them any more and keeps them locked up in the basement?

wolven: The guns themselves? No. His ability to legally operate and purchase ammunition, for said? Probably

mendori: -nods- but you can see my concern that some well meaning state official would not grasp the difference

wolven: absolutely. Which is why I think we need well reasoned, intelligent people to sit down, and work out the precise language.

----------------------------

Now. I know there is at least ONE Constitutional Scholar, in the audience. Tell me where my argument falls apart, on a Constitutional basis.

Others, who just think real good, give me potential downfalls and opposing views.

Comments

[amazingmrparker.livejournal.com]

In Georgia, at least, you don't have to show proficiency of any kind, or take any test to get a concealed-carry license. I didn't when I got mine. All you have to do is show up at the county government office, drop the $40 bucks or however much it costs, get your fingerprints taken, and fill out your info that goes on the permit. After that, you just wait three months for them to finish your background check and voila.

I'm 100% with you on training and proficiency - I think it's fucked up that I had to undergo less learning, training, and examination to get a license to conceal and carry something that is designed to kill human beings than I did to get a license to operate something that can kill them accidentally.

While I don't have any particular suggestions to that end, I'm reasonably certain that the high muckety-mucks (despite state officials that don't see the difference between owning and using) could come up with some sort of reasonable "grandfather clause" (pun intended) so that current gun owners wouldn't be penalized for the new rules.

I'm no Constitutional scholar, BUT...you don't have to be certified, trained, or proficient with anything to have any of the other freedoms provided in the Bill of Rights - you just get them for free, no matter what, period. IF someone were to fail a proficiency test, they would effectively be barred from their 2nd-Amendment rights. Yes, you can fail a driving test and legally be barred from operating a vehicle...but the ability to do so is not guaranteed by the Constitution. I think that mandatory gun training and certification is certainly a reasonable thing...but I don't think that it's Constitutional.

[mendori.livejournal.com]

The GA permit is barely worth the paper its printed on - it has no training requirement, nor does it really act as a permit in any state but this one. The few others that recognize them are limited.

For an example of what a GOOD CCW system looks like, take a look at Florida.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/index.html

[halafax.livejournal.com]

States rights over federal. States can do whatever they want when it comes to gun certs. Think about it, how many ppl do you know that got their drivers license in a different state that drive better than most ppl in this stupid state?

Also then you have to break it down to the county and city level. So would this mean you have to take a city, county, state, and federal test? All of these agencies are going to want to cash in on this. How many ppl do you think are going to take that many tests. My dad used to be a gun dealer. There was plenty of red tape back then. I understand your view point, but unless the government can agree to have one agency for all levels of government for this proficiency test the wait and the time involved would be over the top.
Also you are using reasonable intelligent and government in the same sentence...

[mendori.livejournal.com]

States rights over federal, with the imposition of the rule of interstate commerce.

Hell, technically the only reason one state has to acknowledge another state's drivers licenses is because of the interstate commerce clause. However, they don't have to recognize much else - your marriage, your gun license, your tax status in other states, etc.

Yes, states rights come before federal rights. However, INDIVIDUAL rights should come before states rights.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

ICC and Full Faith and Credit.

[necrophonic.livejournal.com]

What about Alaska trying to legalize Marijauna and being shot down by the Federal government?

Or am I remembering that incorrectly?

[kitsuchan.livejournal.com]

No, they legalized it. But because it's still illegal under federal law, technically the feds can come in and arrest you, but since it's Alaska, they usually don't bother.

[mendori.livejournal.com]

Same with California and medical Marijuana

[kitsuchan.livejournal.com]

Yeah, except that in CA, the feds have been going after all the growers, especially up in the north. Apparently this has had the unfortunate side effect of many growers switching their production to meth. Brilliant, FBI, brilliant.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

If you put pressure on people who are trying to survive by already not-quite-legal means, those people are going to find other, less legal means. Because they feel put-upon. That they are not able to regain legal works...

That kind of thing.

[necrophonic.livejournal.com]

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. And, go Alaska. heh

[wolven.livejournal.com]

See full faith and credit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_faith_and_credit), and a clear definition of "Reasonableness." Together, these things could go a long way toward making sure that people who know what they're doing, and plan to do it legally, can have guns.

Also "a well regulated militia..." Emphasis mine, of course. There needs to be more attention to that "well regulated" part.

[nausved.livejournal.com]

I like your plan. It makes absolute sense to me.

[smokierings.livejournal.com]

Ditto. I'd feel much safer about more gun permissions if more of the people I see asking for them weren't completely psychotic about it.

[necrophonic.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Gimme guns. Gimme lots of guns. Gimme guns outta my ears.

But make sure I know how to use them, and make sure the asshole down the street isn't going to find a mach 10 and decide to prune his rosebushes that are in the same direction as my kitchen window...

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Yep.

[kitsuchan.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think it's way too easy to get and keep a driver's license. We should make that harder.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I agree, as well.

[mendori.livejournal.com]

I'm a bit worried that so many of you seem to assume that your average gun owner is a psyco or an idiot....

Jeesh, do I really seem that wacko to you guys?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

You're not the people on the news. But the Average people of any group rarely are the ones on the news.