Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dark Severance wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Vehicle registration has nothing to do with operator ability, safety, or crime prevention.

Except when investing a vehicle used in or with conjunction with a crime. Then it is used to look up YMME (year, make, model, engine) that been identified, cross reference owners, licenses, VINs, addresses to create a list of suspects to start investigating.

Starting out a gun registry couldn't be used like that because initially there would be a selection that would have to be grandfathered in. Over time those guns will weed themselves out of the system or become the only ones used in crimes. However video of someone utilizing X-rifle with Y scope or even simply a certain model of pistol identified in a crime, but the criminals were masked, could be used to cross reference possible suspects within the area.

Right, and what happens when the guns turn out to be stolen? Like the vast majority of guns used in crimes in the US. Such a registry is useless if the gun used in a crime is stolen.

And no, the rightful owner reporting the gun to be stolen doesn't do a thing to prevent a further crime from occurring. It doesn't activate some magical homing device so the cops know where the gun is. All reporting a gun stolen does is help you get your gun back if the police find it in the process of some other investigation, or it will just get locked up forever in some evidence locker.

A registry isn't meant to stop weapons being stolen, but it does help with identification of the weapon. Under your current system, that weapon could have been sold multiple times and only one name would be on it, the original owner, who the police would talk to. They might eventually trace the last owner or the weapon, and thus identify some useful information, such as a possible witness, location, date, time, or any other pertinent information.
With a registered weapon , the police can go immediately to the current owner to ascertain if they have any information that might help.

 r_squared wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dark Severance wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Vehicle registration has nothing to do with operator ability, safety, or crime prevention.

Except when investing a vehicle used in or with conjunction with a crime. Then it is used to look up YMME (year, make, model, engine) that been identified, cross reference owners, licenses, VINs, addresses to create a list of suspects to start investigating.

Starting out a gun registry couldn't be used like that because initially there would be a selection that would have to be grandfathered in. Over time those guns will weed themselves out of the system or become the only ones used in crimes. However video of someone utilizing X-rifle with Y scope or even simply a certain model of pistol identified in a crime, but the criminals were masked, could be used to cross reference possible suspects within the area.

Right, and what happens when the guns turn out to be stolen? Like the vast majority of guns used in crimes in the US. Such a registry is useless if the gun used in a crime is stolen.

And no, the rightful owner reporting the gun to be stolen doesn't do a thing to prevent a further crime from occurring. It doesn't activate some magical homing device so the cops know where the gun is. All reporting a gun stolen does is help you get your gun back if the police find it in the process of some other investigation, or it will just get locked up forever in some evidence locker.

A registry isn't meant to stop weapons being stolen, but it does help with identification of the weapon. Under your current system, that weapon could have been sold multiple times and only one name would be on it, the original owner, who the police would talk to. They might eventually trace the last owner or the weapon, and thus identify some useful information, such as a possible witness, location, date, time, or any other pertinent information.
With a registered weapon , the police can go immediately to the current owner to ascertain if they have any information that might help.

Making the police's job a little easier(but still not tangible benefit) is a terrible excuse to trample on a Constitutional right.

Perhaps you'd like to remove the right to privacy as well so the police can search the residence of the last registered owner too, you know. Just so they can do their job right?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Right, and what happens when the guns turn out to be stolen? Like the vast majority of guns used in crimes in the US. Such a registry is useless if the gun used in a crime is stolen.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you talking about the person registered a gun, then found it was stolen? Or are you talking about that in the process of an investigation, a gun that was registered was stolen and used in a crime?

There are a number of things that could happen, depending on what you mean and what they are investigating. In the situation where a person has a lot of guns, a lot of the time they don't even realize it was stolen. So at the very least it is reported, where there more stolen? Just like when a vehicle is stolen and used in a crime, they could look at acquaintances, other people and putting that "stolen item" case to the forefront instead of in a file sitting (if they knew it was stolen and reported). Most stolen items, unless a chain of break-ins in the area, are usually not by strangers. If there were other things stolen, and other areas reported, or if it was someone known, either way it puts them on the right track.

Does the person who had the gun stolen become liable for failure to store, keep, maintain their weapons properly? That really depends and is probably situational. There would have to be a proper case analysis done to figure out what would be appropriate for these situations.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And no, the rightful owner reporting the gun to be stolen doesn't do a thing to prevent a further crime from occurring. It doesn't activate some magical homing device so the cops know where the gun is. All reporting a gun stolen does is help you get your gun back if the police find it in the process of some other investigation, or it will just get locked up forever in some evidence locker.

I don't think anyone said it creates a magical homing device. There is however an investigation process that can track with proper information, starting point, traveling routes that something ends up in someone's possession. Law enforcement utilize them track and find smugglering rings or operations, gangs and other criminals associated with it. At least until which point they hit a snag or trail is cold.

For example. Gun stolen in California, used in a crime in New York. In a lot of situations simply the gun being used in a crime in another city won't flag or cause the stolen report or even cross reference with it. It will sit in a evidence locker. That is more to do with depending on what the crime was and whose jurisdiction it was. A central database not defined by that allows a place to cross reference everything, which could trigger the stolen report and reopen the investigation into that. It also prevents someone from stealing the gun in California, but selling it privately in Texas, then having it stolen again or even sold illegally, making its way to New York. Part of the registry is making sure the NCIS is active. A central database should also have stolen guns reported to it, so as part of the check (if done legally) would identify it as stolen and hopefully prevent a crime. Law enforcement track stolen vehicles and parts through similar methods, even ones that have been to a chop shop via similar methods.

It isn't about stopping one crime or preventing one crime, as it is creating a system of accountability for buyers, sellers and centralized system for tracking without red tape between law enforcement agencies.

Does it still need some work? Absolutely, no system is perfect. What do you propose as a method to lower gun violence then or do you simply believe that everything although not great, is acceptable as it is?

 Dark Severance wrote:
What do you propose as a method to lower gun violence then or do you simply believe that everything although not great, is acceptable as it is?

Gun violence is already dropping faster than the stocks did in 2008. Without such a draconian infringement on personal rights, both 2nd and 4th amendment.

Given that the measures you propose would do nothing to lower gun crime any further and that it would involve seriously infringing on a Constitutional right I would say things are fully acceptable.

Which constitutional right are we talking about? Im not sure how a universal federal registry tramples on it if the first person to buy the gun must be registered.
As a Nation, you've already accepted the idea of guns being registered to an individual. So does that not currently infringe on the right? A federal registry would be an extension of the current system to include second hand gun sales between private individuals.

 r_squared wrote:
Which constitutional right are we talking about? Im not sure how a universal federal registry tramples on it if the first person to buy the gun must be registered.
As a Nation, you've already accepted the idea of guns being registered to an individual. So does that not currently infringe on the right? A federal registry would be an extension of the current system to include second hand gun sales between private individuals.

We don't have complete registries. You don't currently go into a database when you buy a gun. But yes, I would say the registries which do exist do indeed infringe on the 2nd amendment, both state and federal(which would be things like automatic weapons).

 Grey Templar wrote:
Making the police's job a little easier(but still not tangible benefit) is a terrible excuse to trample on a Constitutional right.

Perhaps you'd like to remove the right to privacy as well so the police can search the residence of the last registered owner too, you know. Just so they can do their job right?

Trample is a bit subjective. You don't honestly believe you have privacy in today's world? Or is it just that you don't want to provide the government an easier way to get information about you? There is absolutely nothing private in the world we live in today.

You are on this forum. You might think your anonymous and even if you use a fake name, email and everything else, you aren't anonymous. I am going to assume you have a job, car, drivers license, bank account, rewards card, facebook account just to list a few things. Maybe you don't have any of those things, not that there is anything wrong with that at all. But unless you are living completely off the grid and/or a hacker, then then you absolutely have the right to privacy... however you are kidding yourself if you really think you have it.

I am willing to accept a small loss of perceived privacy for a better and safer future. We won't get there today but I would sure like to take steps to get there. However I do recognize that is an opinion. That is one of the great things about this country. Someday though not everyone will agree to the same thing, but one day they might just as one day there was a country that said "Yep we should ban all guns." and they did so. Now personally I also don't believe banning guns is a proper solution so I am trying to think outside of the box to provide other avenues that doesn't remove rights but improves our living situations and environments.

What happens when a majority of the country does say and vote to ban all guns? Is it suddenly they took the rights away, so time to become a criminal and rise up against it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Gun violence is already dropping faster than the stocks did in 2008. Without such a draconian infringement on personal rights, both 2nd and 4th amendment.

Then you are of the side that accepts the current environment and statistics since they are dropping and thus makes it acceptable. The main thing is since you don't think there is an issue then I can't expect you to constructively come up with solutions, other than shooting holes in other peoples, since there doesn't appear to be an issue for you. Not that there is anything wrong with it. I don't agree with it completely but that is neither here or there.

Likewise, maybe you should accept that gun ownership is here to stay and realize the impractical manner to "put the genie back in the bottle".

For all the energy spent on anti-gun rhetoric, instead, should be put towards safety education and training?

 whembly wrote:
Likewise, maybe you should accept that gun ownership is here to stay and realize the impractical manner to "put the genie back in the bottle".

For all the energy spent on anti-gun rhetoric, instead, should be put towards safety education and training?

Since I'm of the ideology that banning guns is not the answer, I do accept gun ownership is here to stay. It is definitely impractical to put it back in the bottle, unless there happens to be an event so big that everyone actually decides to do something different.

It however isn't impractical to try to come up with better ways to improve the system. Safety education and training definitely a viable solution to some things. However unless training, education somehow becomes mandatory for certain things and in repeated intervals it isn't a true solution.

 Smacks wrote:
You always argue your points well Vaktathi, exalted. I feel that we can probably find a lot to agree on in all of this. Perhaps that analogies are helpful for explaining things, but they don't constitute logical arguments. These car analogies seem to appear on both sides of the debate however.

I'm quite inebriated right now, but thanks!

 r_squared wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dark Severance wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Vehicle registration has nothing to do with operator ability, safety, or crime prevention.

Except when investing a vehicle used in or with conjunction with a crime. Then it is used to look up YMME (year, make, model, engine) that been identified, cross reference owners, licenses, VINs, addresses to create a list of suspects to start investigating.

Starting out a gun registry couldn't be used like that because initially there would be a selection that would have to be grandfathered in. Over time those guns will weed themselves out of the system or become the only ones used in crimes. However video of someone utilizing X-rifle with Y scope or even simply a certain model of pistol identified in a crime, but the criminals were masked, could be used to cross reference possible suspects within the area.

Right, and what happens when the guns turn out to be stolen? Like the vast majority of guns used in crimes in the US. Such a registry is useless if the gun used in a crime is stolen.

And no, the rightful owner reporting the gun to be stolen doesn't do a thing to prevent a further crime from occurring. It doesn't activate some magical homing device so the cops know where the gun is. All reporting a gun stolen does is help you get your gun back if the police find it in the process of some other investigation, or it will just get locked up forever in some evidence locker.

A registry isn't meant to stop weapons being stolen, but it does help with identification of the weapon. Under your current system, that weapon could have been sold multiple times and only one name would be on it, the original owner, who the police would talk to. They might eventually trace the last owner or the weapon, and thus identify some useful information, such as a possible witness, location, date, time, or any other pertinent information.
With a registered weapon , the police can go immediately to the current owner to ascertain if they have any information that might help.

The problem is that there is a perception, with some merit to it, that such registries turn into "confiscation lists" or are used as mechanisms for bans. The 1986 Machinegun ban for example wasn't a ban on civilians owning machineguns, but, in effect, said that the NFA registry will not accept tax applications to register any new machineguns, permanently fixing the market of available weapons and essentially driving the prices up so that, aside from the wealthiest of people able to put down five or six figures for a firearm, they're effectively banned for most people. The NY SAFE Act registry & CA Assault Weapons ban registries are used to harass legal owners with letters about how the weapons they own are somehow special and how they're extra-liable for owning them, and in the case of the CA registry, had a magnificent cockup where, after getting everyone to register certain weapons, the DoJ came back around and said a certain version of SKS also was now considered an "assault weapon" and needed to be registered, but then it was decided that they couldn't legally add people to the registry after the ban date and so all the people who *did* register them had to surrender their weapons (despite them being no more dangerous or capable than many other weapons still available) and basically no recourse. Then there are issues with such registries having gigantic efficacy and maintenance problems, as I mentioned earlier in the thread (where my father is still on the CA registry despite no longer living there and having sold the weapons out of state like 15 or 16 years ago, and the ATF having lost gargantuan numbers of machinegun records). Meanwhile, for all the effort of maintaining these databases, the number of crimes solved using the information therein is practically nonexistent.

Sorry for the runon paragraph there...a little too much to drink tonight.

 Dark Severance wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Likewise, maybe you should accept that gun ownership is here to stay and realize the impractical manner to "put the genie back in the bottle".

For all the energy spent on anti-gun rhetoric, instead, should be put towards safety education and training?

Since I'm of the ideology that banning guns is not the answer, I do accept gun ownership is here to stay. It is definitely impractical to put it back in the bottle, unless there happens to be an event so big that everyone actually decides to do something different.

It however isn't impractical to try to come up with better ways to improve the system. Safety education and training definitely a viable solution to some things. However unless training, education somehow becomes mandatory for certain things and in repeated intervals it isn't a true solution.

If gun training and safety courses become mandatory for ownership you should also make everyone take mandatory courses on Religion, Public speaking and debate, Privacy and how to protect your right to it, and How to keep soldiers from sleeping on your couch.

There are ways to promote gun safety and marksmanship training. Some jurisdictions make training a prereq for receiving a CPL, for instance. I would not be opposed for this to happen in all instances where someone requests a CPL.

 Breotan wrote:
There are ways to promote gun safety and marksmanship training. Some jurisdictions make training a prereq for receiving a CPL, for instance. I would not be opposed for this to happen in all instances where someone requests a CPL.

Especially if there was a federal CPL that had reciprocity in all 50 states.

 whembly wrote:
Likewise, maybe you should accept that gun ownership is here to stay and realize the impractical manner to "put the genie back in the bottle".

For all the energy spent on anti-gun rhetoric, instead, should be put towards safety education and training?

Britain, Australia and Japan have successfully put the genie back in the bottle. It's hard to believe that the USA could not manage it, if the political will existed

The current status is that according to Gallup, 75% of the population think the law as it stands is broadly adequate. Until the people change their mind, nothing will happen.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
Which constitutional right are we talking about? Im not sure how a universal federal registry tramples on it if the first person to buy the gun must be registered.
As a Nation, you've already accepted the idea of guns being registered to an individual. So does that not currently infringe on the right? A federal registry would be an extension of the current system to include second hand gun sales between private individuals.

We don't have complete registries. You don't currently go into a database when you buy a gun. But yes, I would say the registries which do exist do indeed infringe on the 2nd amendment, both state and federal(which would be things like automatic weapons).

On the basis of your objection to the perceived infringement, wouldn't it follow that all registrations and checks should be dropped?
How does that affect your position on legitimate ownership?

 r_squared wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dark Severance wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Vehicle registration has nothing to do with operator ability, safety, or crime prevention.

Except when investing a vehicle used in or with conjunction with a crime. Then it is used to look up YMME (year, make, model, engine) that been identified, cross reference owners, licenses, VINs, addresses to create a list of suspects to start investigating.

Starting out a gun registry couldn't be used like that because initially there would be a selection that would have to be grandfathered in. Over time those guns will weed themselves out of the system or become the only ones used in crimes. However video of someone utilizing X-rifle with Y scope or even simply a certain model of pistol identified in a crime, but the criminals were masked, could be used to cross reference possible suspects within the area.

Right, and what happens when the guns turn out to be stolen? Like the vast majority of guns used in crimes in the US. Such a registry is useless if the gun used in a crime is stolen.

And no, the rightful owner reporting the gun to be stolen doesn't do a thing to prevent a further crime from occurring. It doesn't activate some magical homing device so the cops know where the gun is. All reporting a gun stolen does is help you get your gun back if the police find it in the process of some other investigation, or it will just get locked up forever in some evidence locker.

A registry isn't meant to stop weapons being stolen, but it does help with identification of the weapon. Under your current system, that weapon could have been sold multiple times and only one name would be on it, the original owner, who the police would talk to. They might eventually trace the last owner or the weapon, and thus identify some useful information, such as a possible witness, location, date, time, or any other pertinent information.
With a registered weapon , the police can go immediately to the current owner to ascertain if they have any information that might help.

Damn it, here I go being stupid and jumping back into this mess of a discussion.


Under a registry, nothing would change. Private sales, especially illegal transfers among criminals, are unlikely to be reported under such a system. So, you're back to square one. An actual registry would be both a waste of time and money, since the current system of FFL maintained 4473s is already in place.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Likewise, maybe you should accept that gun ownership is here to stay and realize the impractical manner to "put the genie back in the bottle".

For all the energy spent on anti-gun rhetoric, instead, should be put towards safety education and training?

Britain, Australia and Japan have successfully put the genie back in the bottle. It's hard to believe that the USA could not manage it, if the political will existed

The current status is that according to Gallup, 75% of the population think the law as it stands is broadly adequate. Until the people change their mind, nothing will happen.

Japan hasn't had widespread private ownership of weapons since the late 1500's, when Toyotomi Hideyoshi restricted weapons ownership to the warrior nobility under his dictatorship.


Britain has never had a culture of widespread gun ownership, and Australians have viewed gun ownership more as a practical manner than an enshrined right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
There are ways to promote gun safety and marksmanship training. Some jurisdictions make training a prereq for receiving a CPL, for instance. I would not be opposed for this to happen in all instances where someone requests a CPL.

The vast majority of "shall issue" jurisdictions require a course and proficiency demonstration before issuing a CCW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dark Severance wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Likewise, maybe you should accept that gun ownership is here to stay and realize the impractical manner to "put the genie back in the bottle".

For all the energy spent on anti-gun rhetoric, instead, should be put towards safety education and training?

Since I'm of the ideology that banning guns is not the answer, I do accept gun ownership is here to stay. It is definitely impractical to put it back in the bottle, unless there happens to be an event so big that everyone actually decides to do something different.

It however isn't impractical to try to come up with better ways to improve the system. Safety education and training definitely a viable solution to some things. However unless training, education somehow becomes mandatory for certain things and in repeated intervals it isn't a true solution.

The problem is that training, mandatory or not, isn't a magical solution to poor gun handling habits. Some of the worst offenders are military personnel and law enforcement officers. The very same people that many anti-gunners believe are the only ones "qualified" to possess firearms and use them defensively.

 Dark Severance wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
If you want to restrict a constitutionally protected right, you had better have a great damned reason.

The US Constitution was adopted and signed in September 1787. It was ratified on June 21, 1788. The original Constitution did not have the Second Amendment. An Amendment by its very nature is a "an addition or alteration made to the constitution, statute, or legislative bill or resolution. Amendments can be made to existing constitutions and statutes and are also commonly made to bills in the course of their passage through a legislature.

The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, 3 years after the actual the actual Constitution was created. It was part of the first ten amendments, but definitely not the last ones added to the Constitution and will be able to be modified, amended as allowed until which time we cease to be a country or the end of time, whichever happens first. Now will everyone agree or like what those amendments are, probably not. However there is a process that lets the government do just that providing it gets voted in.

So quit trying to legislate or regulate away a constitutionally protected right and use the correct process and amend the constitution.

The way to do that is to change people's minds on the issue, so they will help to amend the constitution.

Hence threads like this.

 Grey Templar wrote:


If gun training and safety courses become mandatory for ownership you should also make everyone take mandatory courses on Religion, Public speaking and debate, .

Pfft.. as if people would accept people -- their children even -- being required to attend facilities where they'd be taught such things !

Next thing you know they'd be given work to complete at home as well !

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The way to do that is to change people's minds on the issue, so they will help to amend the constitution.

Hence threads like this.

Except, that attitude change, as shown by more states opening up concealed carry, cases like Heller and so on, are going the opposite direction. Threads like this tend to be nothing but folks showing their willingness to curtail the rights of others because it would make them 'feel' good about 'doing something'. Even when that 'something' being done does not actually address the alleged problems.

 CptJake wrote:

 Dark Severance wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
If you want to restrict a constitutionally protected right, you had better have a great damned reason.

The US Constitution was adopted and signed in September 1787. It was ratified on June 21, 1788. The original Constitution did not have the Second Amendment. An Amendment by its very nature is a "an addition or alteration made to the constitution, statute, or legislative bill or resolution. Amendments can be made to existing constitutions and statutes and are also commonly made to bills in the course of their passage through a legislature.

The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, 3 years after the actual the actual Constitution was created. It was part of the first ten amendments, but definitely not the last ones added to the Constitution and will be able to be modified, amended as allowed until which time we cease to be a country or the end of time, whichever happens first. Now will everyone agree or like what those amendments are, probably not. However there is a process that lets the government do just that providing it gets voted in.

So quit trying to legislate or regulate away a constitutionally protected right and use the correct process and amend the constitution.

...which is to legislate it away.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Likewise, maybe you should accept that gun ownership is here to stay and realize the impractical manner to "put the genie back in the bottle".

For all the energy spent on anti-gun rhetoric, instead, should be put towards safety education and training?

Britain, Australia and Japan have successfully put the genie back in the bottle. It's hard to believe that the USA could not manage it, if the political will existed

The current status is that according to Gallup, 75% of the population think the law as it stands is broadly adequate. Until the people change their mind, nothing will happen.

If there were anything that can cause the Second Civil War... you could do no worst then try repealing the 2nd/take away gun ownership.

So, it's a non-starter.

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The way to do that is to change people's minds on the issue, so they will help to amend the constitution.

Hence threads like this.

Except, that attitude change, as shown by more states opening up concealed carry, cases like Heller and so on, are going the opposite direction. Threads like this tend to be nothing ...

All the more reason to work hard to change attitudes.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Likewise, maybe you should accept that gun ownership is here to stay and realize the impractical manner to "put the genie back in the bottle".

For all the energy spent on anti-gun rhetoric, instead, should be put towards safety education and training?

Britain, Australia and Japan have successfully put the genie back in the bottle. It's hard to believe that the USA could not manage it, if the political will existed

These nations never had firearms ownership as widespread as the US (particularly Japan where firearms ownership by private individuals has never been anything but exceedingly rare, the genie never got out of the bottle so to speak), have much smaller populations, and different cultural attitudes not just towards firearms but to policing and government as well. They also have had very little domestic firearms production relative to the US, particularly in the last 60 or so years. There's a whole host of factors that are different.

There would need to be an even greater political will in the US than there ever was in these nations simply because the barriers they're starting out from for "putting the genie back in the bottle" are significantly higher. Looking at CA's program to go door to door confiscating firearms from supposed prohibited persons (nevermind that many people this program targeted were not in fact prohibited), the cost to the state per gun retrieved was about $2500-$3500 (not counting legal challenges & court costs), extrapolating that to the ~300/350 million + firearms in the US in a relatively simplistic manner, you'd be talking about ~700 Billion -~1.2 trillion. Theoretically possible, but practically impossible, and that's when they've already got lists of prohibited persons they're just checking off.

 Hordini wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
There are ways to promote gun safety and marksmanship training. Some jurisdictions make training a prereq for receiving a CPL, for instance. I would not be opposed for this to happen in all instances where someone requests a CPL.

Especially if there was a federal CPL that had reciprocity in all 50 states.

That's a horrible idea and I sincerely wish people would stop espousing it as a good idea. Concealed carry permits are a state issue and should remain one. The last thing I want is the federal govt usurping more power from the states and doing so on a matter I care about. I am happy with the carry permit process here in NC. It could be better but that's an issue that can be resolved here in the state. The last thing I want is for hundreds of anti gun politicians in Congress from states like CA, NY, MA etc messing with my concealed carry permit. The ATF screws up enough as it is the last thing I want is for them to be in control of every concealed carry permit in the country.

I concur, it is a state issue.

Yup, Federal/national CPL is a fething terrible idea.

In theory national carry could be nice. Being able to carry in any state, with one set of rules across the board, not having to worry about reciprocity and where you can carry in NY vs where you can carry in NC or WA, that would be super rad, and could have a lot of pluses for people living in "may issue" states.

The problem is that it could also effectively kill carry options if it turns out to be run akin to CA or NY's CHL practices or is run anything like NFA items.

In theory, lots of cool stuff about it, but lots of potential downsides as well.

Have a Fed permit that allows carry in all states but allow states the power to issue state ones that are only valid in that state.

If a state wants to have laxer requirements than the Federal government, they can but other states don't have to recognize it...

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Likewise, maybe you should accept that gun ownership is here to stay and realize the impractical manner to "put the genie back in the bottle".

For all the energy spent on anti-gun rhetoric, instead, should be put towards safety education and training?

Britain, Australia and Japan have successfully put the genie back in the bottle. It's hard to believe that the USA could not manage it, if the political will existed

The current status is that according to Gallup, 75% of the population think the law as it stands is broadly adequate. Until the people change their mind, nothing will happen.

If there were anything that can cause the Second Civil War... you could do no worst then try repealing the 2nd/take away gun ownership.

So, it's a non-starter.

I've refuted this before, but it would not, simpy because of how our amendment system works. To remove an amendment, you need a majority in both houses, and 2/3s of the states to ratify it. For that to happen, you need a vast majority in support. Those willing to go to armed conflict about it would be such a minority that it would have no effect.

Not only tha, even if they managed it today, with the opinions staying the way they are now, I have serious doubts of true civil war. Action by independent militia groups? Sure. States secseeding? Little chance.