Skip to main content

View Diary: Criminally Insane Man arrested with 36 guns (331 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  how do you enforce the law? Motor-Shooter. (6+ / 0-)

    Personally, I think it should be enforced through
    Drivers licenses.

    I have a "M" endorsement on my DL, which
    states i've taken a test to pass a motorcycle test.
    It also has a V endorsement for eyeglasses.

    Why not add a F endorsement for "Firearms" and it means
    that at the time i got my DL a check showed I had no
    felonies and i had a doctors note that said I had no
    Medical conditions which would prevent me from
    safely possessing firearms.

    then if you sell a gun to anyone, just look at their DL.
    If you buy a firearm from someone, just show your DL.

    if you get stopped by the cops you show it.

    i'd want the endorsement, just in case

    •  Interesting idea (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      88kathy

      However, I can see that the Courts would say requiring a DL would infringe on the RKBA.

      But, I think ideas like this are on the right track. UBC would also do a lot to help.

      •  you don't have to require a DL, but, it's (6+ / 0-)

        prima facie negligence to not check, and if you
        do check, it's prima facie evidence of good faith.

        If you sell a gun to a felon, you are a crook.
        How do you prove you aren't? You check their
        F reg on their DL.  If you wrote down who
        the buyer was, and the DL, well, if the gun turns
        up in a crime scene, and you show it wasn't you,
        well, bang instant, get out of jail free card.

        if you don't have any records, well, now you may
        find yourself in some s&*t.

        It's easy enough to add this endorsement to a State ID
        card,  but,  still..  That's a detail.

        I'd say of people who lawfully posess guns, i'd bet 95%
        of them posess Drivers licenses.

        •  Yes (3+ / 0-)

          In states which require DL/ID for voting, it would be hard for them to argue that a DL/ID isn't required for gun ownership/purchase.

        •  ^^^THIS - and a separate endorsement for (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Buckeye Nut Schell, Mickquinas

          handguns vs. long guns.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 11:34:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  that's harder. (0+ / 0-)

            it's easy enough to pass a Strict Scrutiny test for
            a Firearm owners card/DL endorsement/State ID w/Firearms endorsement.

            1) Compelling Govt Interests

            2) Narrowly Tailored

            3) Least restrictive means

            The Rational Basis is helping reduce felons from getting
            guns and possessing guns along with Mentally Ill people

            Narrowly tailored because it doesn't impede the transactions,
            merely provides a simple vehicle for dealers to verify
            your background check, without forming a database or record. (This endorsement would apply to everything from antique weapons to hunting rifles to Mil-Spec).

            Least Restrictive means.  Doesn't apply any additional burden, on people because they need ID for so many basics.

            If you modified the Forms for a DL so that you came in
            wtiha  form, and you could either get the local sheriff or
            your doctor to sign it or the DMV people take the medical
            cert from your doctor.  

            Have the Medical cert be 2 parts Part 1) Applicant has no known medical conditions to restrict driving . Part 2) Applicant has no known medical conditions to restrict gun ownership

            Then the Legal part can be signed by the local sheriff
            or the DMV clerk can run your name and SSN on
            AFIS or PROMIS or other FBI databases.

            Then whenever you want to buy a gun, show your DL,
            and they verify you are 1) over 18, 2) not restricted.

            It'd be nice and simple.

      •  Not so - the relief granted to Mr. Heller (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Buckeye Nut Schell, fcvaguy

        was that he be allowed to a) register his handgun with the DC police, and b) obtain an ownership license to keep it in his home in DC.

        As far as I know neither Heller/McDonald say anything about the intersection of the a right to privacy for gun ownership/public carry.

        That said, a dozen or so states passed privacy laws last year to keep concealed carry licenses name/address information private. I applaud those laws because there are legitimate reasons why someone could be licensed to carry concealed in public (e.g. judges, police, undercover police, victims of violence or someone who is being stalked). In New York, you have to convince a county official that you have "good cause" to carry a concealed weapon in public.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 11:32:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  That is a new idea (3+ / 0-)

      at least I hadn't heard it before. It would also need to be applicable to state ID cards as well. Perhaps they would need to be available without charge.

      I do have one big concern. If we codify that your 2nd Amendment rights require I.D. do we not legitimize state efforts to make voting rights require I.D.?

      To be first in the soil, which erupts in the coil, of trees veins and grasses all brought to a boil. -- The Maxx

      by notrouble on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:01:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  your 2nd Amendment rights don't require ID (3+ / 0-)

        but,

        by presenting it, you short circuit the polices "Reasonable articulable suspicion" that you are a felon in possession
        of a gun.

        if you don't have the F endorsement, then, do
        you have a few minutes while the police run your
        record?

      •  Yes, and we would legitimize the idea that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Miggles

        gun registration can be required and should be public information, the same way voters must register and if they choose a party, it's public information.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 11:21:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There is no party affiliation information (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener

          in my state, and I would oppose any efforts to make that happen.

          Actually, it wouldn't legitimize the idea of gun registration, it would legitimize the idea that a license was required for gun ownership. Such a license could be held by someone with no firearms, or 10 firearms.

          To be first in the soil, which erupts in the coil, of trees veins and grasses all brought to a boil. -- The Maxx

          by notrouble on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 05:38:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I would say that you only need a license... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener

        if you take your gun onto public property (e.g. a public road or anywhere else) or if you transfer ownership.  If you have your grand daddies shotgun in your attic and never take it out of your home then you don't need a license but if you buy or sell it or if you transport it, then you need a license.  

        You have a right to keep and bare arms for protecting yourself and your personal property but if you buy and sell weapons or you take them with you onto public property, the public has a right to protect themselves from you.

        "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

        by Buckeye Nut Schell on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 12:44:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Drivers licenses are good for several years, yet (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener

      there may be issues that come up that invalidate your right to a firearm.  You'd need to specify in the law that when those issues come up, you'd have to surrender your drivers license / state ID so you could be issued another one without the "F" on it.  I could see people objecting to that amounting to an additional fine just for being a firearm eligible person.

      •  The car analogy works on some levels, but fails on (5+ / 0-)

        others.

        Cars have time, manner, place restrictions.

        Regulate the object:

        Anyone can own a vehicle. But you can't park or drive on a public road unless you meet other criteria. Failure to legally and safely park your vehicle results in various fines, charges, and temporary forfeiture. (towing)

        The are all kinds of restrictions on who you can legally allow to operate your vehicle....

        HUGE difference:
        It's very hard to conceal a vehicle. You can't carry one around with you in public. There are regulations about who/how you can tow a car in public, and it's almost impossible to move one from point A to point B without everyone knowing what kind of vehicle it is and whether the vehicle is legally owned and where it is registered. All of that information is available to the public as well as the police.

        Regulate the operator:
        National licensing could be graduated, just like we different licenses for different vehicles, a car, a motorcycle, a taxi, a limo, a truck, a really big truck. A minivan, a minibus, and a big bus have different licensing requirements and safety regulations of the operators.

        If we have a national licensing scheme separate from the object, it would mean that I (with my child and military training) could easily go to any gun range and shoot for fun, join my friends on shooting or hunting sports and use their guns, just for fun/food... and the public could rest assured that I was licensed in basic safe operation and lawful use of guns.

        Graduated licensing is the way forward:
        Licensing all guns on the basis of ownership would allow different levels for ownership in one's home, ownership in one's business (that meets with ~4-10 clients per day vs. one that serves 300 customers every night, etc.). Public carry of various kinds could have different levels of licensing. (Carry unloaded in one's personal vehicle, vs. carry your 20 gun collection to a gun show for possible sale).

        The infrastructure is already in place. Just piggy back on the the DMV, have the license be a letter designation on your driver's license. The reason we can't have such common sense regulations is that ALEC/NRA has convinced us that it is necessary to protect the privacy of illegal gun owners and legal gun owners to the same degree.

        Separating the operator licensing from the ownership regulations would allow us to have safer gun ownership and use for everyone.

        I probably should write a diary about this.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:53:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site