Without commenting on the proffered solution, I note that the Constitution says nothing about a right to drive, perform surgery, or fly airplanes, but it does note the right to bear arms. I also note this is not noted at one of the objections along with cost, burden, political limitations. "There is no Second Amendment Constitutional challenge" flies in the face of a hundred years of... second amendment constitutional challenges. Your framework would be institutionalized, bastardized, bureaucratized, and bloated into the same byzantine labyrinth of rules, regulations, and ordinances that describe the FDA, the EPA, the IRS, and nearly every other government entity.
Yep. I mean people have become convinced that there is a constitutional right to abortion; and yet this is an actual constitutional right. It has to be taken into account.
Thanks for the comment and discussion. My defense of the 2nd Amendment is this: Under this proposal, no one is prohibited from buying as many semiautomatic rifles, ammunition and accessories as they may want. Thus, there would be no gun confiscation and responsible people can and will continue to get as much firepower as they wish.
The mechanisms are pretty much in place any way.By way of one example, gun shops with ranges could introduce safe gun handling classes. The range instructors can become the reviewers just like the FAA uses flight instructors as reviewers.
I don't think the solution is perfect, but just posing the framework with two questions:
"Is it better than what we have?"
"What happens if we do nothing?"
Thanks for good thoughts and respectful conversation
I like the licensing idea a lot, but I think you're wrong about the Second Amendment not being an impediment to a scheme like this. The argument would run along the lines of "we all have free speech, always; not just after the government grants you a special license for free speech."
Thank you for the comment and discussion. As you know, I am not a constitutional lawyer (or any type of lawyer for that matter). From a lay perspective, it seems we do have limitations on free speech that are in place before you exercise that right. For example, the oft-cited prohibition about yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. There are also prohibitions against threats and intimidation, as well as a long history of libel and slander laws. All serve to preemptively limit/license First amendment rights.
Thus, this proposal, imperfect and incomplete as it is, preserves the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms. Note there are no bans on firearms. There is a reasonable construct to provide a little "well-regulated" into the reality we have today.
Really appreciate your input on this. Your episode is oft-quoted - thank you!
I believe you actually can yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, if you genuinely believe there is one. And we DO have limitations on the right to bear arms-- you can't put a howitzer in your front yard. But I think a license issued by the state would qualify as 'infringement.' You can't own a firearm if you don't participate in the licensing scheme. As noted, I think it's a reasonable and just idea, but almost certainly unconstitutional. And whatever my thoughts on the second amendment, I am quite fond of that splendid document....
I see your logic. "Prove your able to vote", but it would fail because no matter how someone wields their vote, it isn't going to kill innocent people.
1) Criminals currently routinely obtain guns regardless of laws put in place to prevent them from obtaining guns.
2) Public schools are a constant target of mass shootings.
3) Your three examples you cited of regulation of skills - are you convinced that government involvement in these is the best, or only, solution to your perceived problem?
3. Great question. I don't see a government bureaucracy, but empowering the gun shops, FFL, and online sellers some tools to limit bad outcomes from their sales.
In gathering this idea over the years, I made a point of talking to gun store and gun range owners. Across the board, they are interested in helping their customers safely enjoy target sports, hunting, home defense, and self-defense. They would be horrified if one of their sales resulted in a massacre. They take steps to help people comply with the law and to keep people safe, e.g, most have rules about renting a range gun to a person who enters the store alone.
The infrastructure that already exists to sell guns and ammunition could be used for certifications, training and reviews. This is not an original thought, its the way aviators are trained, certified and tested. I'm thinking it would be a better world if we knew that those who had firearms knew how to handle them and weren't crazy people. Again, its a microscopic number of guns that are misused by a microscopic number of people.
Is there another way? I'd welcome a guest or guest column to bring better answers. Because we do have a problem. The patterns are clear.
2. Public schools are a constant target. As have been houses of worship, grocery stores, Walmart, etc. The commonality is the sick f--s who commit these crimes don't try it in a gun store or police department.
Thank you for the continued dialog. I missed seeing this. Please let me try to frame some comments:
1. Yes, criminals do routinely obtain guns regardless of laws put in place. For example, a recent straw purchase provided felons with the guns to shoot law enforcement officers.
The idea of graduated licensing would not stop criminals intent on obtaining a weapon. Perhaps requiring background checks on all transfers would be better. One can't give their car away or sell it without some registration changes so maybe there is something there.
What this proposal WOULD do, is keep the nutty guy from walking in to a store and easily obtaining enough firepower to slaughter. Today the nutty guy can do it legally. Should said nutty guy want to be a killer, the law as suggested would thwart the immediate sale of the most powerful weapons. There would be a period of observation (like pilots) before getting to the most powerful weapons. Yes, he could still create havoc with a revolver, shotgun or deer rifle but not with the ease of semiautomatic weaponry.
So, suppose the legal barrier works, then what? Nutty guy has to find illegal source. Locating an illegal arms dealer would take some work, require time, and risk arrest. Further, the illegal dealer would not be compelled to make the sale like legal owners are today.
Without commenting on the proffered solution, I note that the Constitution says nothing about a right to drive, perform surgery, or fly airplanes, but it does note the right to bear arms. I also note this is not noted at one of the objections along with cost, burden, political limitations. "There is no Second Amendment Constitutional challenge" flies in the face of a hundred years of... second amendment constitutional challenges. Your framework would be institutionalized, bastardized, bureaucratized, and bloated into the same byzantine labyrinth of rules, regulations, and ordinances that describe the FDA, the EPA, the IRS, and nearly every other government entity.
No.
Yep. I mean people have become convinced that there is a constitutional right to abortion; and yet this is an actual constitutional right. It has to be taken into account.
Thanks for the comment and discussion. My defense of the 2nd Amendment is this: Under this proposal, no one is prohibited from buying as many semiautomatic rifles, ammunition and accessories as they may want. Thus, there would be no gun confiscation and responsible people can and will continue to get as much firepower as they wish.
The mechanisms are pretty much in place any way.By way of one example, gun shops with ranges could introduce safe gun handling classes. The range instructors can become the reviewers just like the FAA uses flight instructors as reviewers.
I don't think the solution is perfect, but just posing the framework with two questions:
"Is it better than what we have?"
"What happens if we do nothing?"
Thanks for good thoughts and respectful conversation
I like the licensing idea a lot, but I think you're wrong about the Second Amendment not being an impediment to a scheme like this. The argument would run along the lines of "we all have free speech, always; not just after the government grants you a special license for free speech."
Thank you for the comment and discussion. As you know, I am not a constitutional lawyer (or any type of lawyer for that matter). From a lay perspective, it seems we do have limitations on free speech that are in place before you exercise that right. For example, the oft-cited prohibition about yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. There are also prohibitions against threats and intimidation, as well as a long history of libel and slander laws. All serve to preemptively limit/license First amendment rights.
Thus, this proposal, imperfect and incomplete as it is, preserves the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms. Note there are no bans on firearms. There is a reasonable construct to provide a little "well-regulated" into the reality we have today.
Really appreciate your input on this. Your episode is oft-quoted - thank you!
I believe you actually can yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, if you genuinely believe there is one. And we DO have limitations on the right to bear arms-- you can't put a howitzer in your front yard. But I think a license issued by the state would qualify as 'infringement.' You can't own a firearm if you don't participate in the licensing scheme. As noted, I think it's a reasonable and just idea, but almost certainly unconstitutional. And whatever my thoughts on the second amendment, I am quite fond of that splendid document....
Also one can see how a licensing scheme would, legally and logically, open the door to e.g. licenses to vote.
I see your logic. "Prove your able to vote", but it would fail because no matter how someone wields their vote, it isn't going to kill innocent people.
Richard, what are your thoughts on these points:
1) Criminals currently routinely obtain guns regardless of laws put in place to prevent them from obtaining guns.
2) Public schools are a constant target of mass shootings.
3) Your three examples you cited of regulation of skills - are you convinced that government involvement in these is the best, or only, solution to your perceived problem?
3. Great question. I don't see a government bureaucracy, but empowering the gun shops, FFL, and online sellers some tools to limit bad outcomes from their sales.
In gathering this idea over the years, I made a point of talking to gun store and gun range owners. Across the board, they are interested in helping their customers safely enjoy target sports, hunting, home defense, and self-defense. They would be horrified if one of their sales resulted in a massacre. They take steps to help people comply with the law and to keep people safe, e.g, most have rules about renting a range gun to a person who enters the store alone.
The infrastructure that already exists to sell guns and ammunition could be used for certifications, training and reviews. This is not an original thought, its the way aviators are trained, certified and tested. I'm thinking it would be a better world if we knew that those who had firearms knew how to handle them and weren't crazy people. Again, its a microscopic number of guns that are misused by a microscopic number of people.
Is there another way? I'd welcome a guest or guest column to bring better answers. Because we do have a problem. The patterns are clear.
2. Public schools are a constant target. As have been houses of worship, grocery stores, Walmart, etc. The commonality is the sick f--s who commit these crimes don't try it in a gun store or police department.
Thank you for the continued dialog. I missed seeing this. Please let me try to frame some comments:
1. Yes, criminals do routinely obtain guns regardless of laws put in place. For example, a recent straw purchase provided felons with the guns to shoot law enforcement officers.
The idea of graduated licensing would not stop criminals intent on obtaining a weapon. Perhaps requiring background checks on all transfers would be better. One can't give their car away or sell it without some registration changes so maybe there is something there.
What this proposal WOULD do, is keep the nutty guy from walking in to a store and easily obtaining enough firepower to slaughter. Today the nutty guy can do it legally. Should said nutty guy want to be a killer, the law as suggested would thwart the immediate sale of the most powerful weapons. There would be a period of observation (like pilots) before getting to the most powerful weapons. Yes, he could still create havoc with a revolver, shotgun or deer rifle but not with the ease of semiautomatic weaponry.
So, suppose the legal barrier works, then what? Nutty guy has to find illegal source. Locating an illegal arms dealer would take some work, require time, and risk arrest. Further, the illegal dealer would not be compelled to make the sale like legal owners are today.