Using your own example of vehicle use, perhaps if you plan to potentially take a firearm on other than your own private property you should have a safety class. Does that seem a reasonable compromise?
Taking an assembled and loaded weapon anywhere except private property (most shooting ranges are privately owned, and the owner is free to establish any limits they want, while either your car is an extension of your house or having a loaded gun is prohibited without a permit, depending on jurisdiction) usually requires some form of permit in most places, either a hunting liscence or a CCW permit. The latter almost always requires a safety course, and the former often does. (Open carry exists, but it's rarely actually in play in most places, to the point that there was a spate of arrests a few years ago because the police didn't know it was legal). Mandatory hunter safety courses is not unreasonable, provided that it's only for issuance of a new liscence as opposed to a renewal, and cleaning up the CCW requirements and applying them to open-carry is also not a serious issue, provided that the requirements are not prohibitive, and operate on a shall-issue basis.
It sounds like a minor thing then.
Besides, think about it. You could potentially have free or really cheap classes (like hunter's safety) allow people unfamiliar with the weaponry to learn to handle it safely and due to this gateway potentially decide to own one. It seems to me it could be beneficial to the gun rights cause if it were written the right way rather than detrimental while at the same time it would also benefit the gun control crowd.
Yes, because there's a near 100% chance that those safety classes are going to be held in such a way as to make taking them a royal pain, and that's a dangerous infringement.
And that's why nobody owns cars. After all, there's a near 100% chance that the environmentalist lobby would take great pains to ensure that the licensing procedure is an effective strategy for eroding pollution rates.
EDIT: To make my own position more clear, I want the 2nd Amendment repealed and replaced with something to the effect of the following: "The necessity of certain tools to the continued exercise of democracy being recognized, no law may remove the people's right to own the following items: <List of items>. Items may be added to this list by any act of Congress, but no item may be removed without the force of a Constitutional Amendment. This amendment shall not be construed as preventing well-reasoned regulation of these items."
I'd like guns to be on that list, along with cameras and personal computers (which are now more potent tools against tyranny than guns ever will be again in the West), and no doubt some other people can come up with additional things that ought to go in there. I'd also like judicial precedent to establish that, among whatever other definitions of "well-reasoned" exist, it be unacceptable to pass legislation just because you want to make it harder to own such items - there has to be some particular goal, like ensuring gun owners understand basic safety.
I'd like the actual regulations to be designed based on objective standards of a weapon's effectiveness instead of things like parts lists, not to involve significant financial incentives (a buyback program is the only acceptable thing, I think), and to take into account both actual statistics ("Handguns kill more people than rifles, so they need stricter standards") as well as legitimate uses of a weapon ("A fully-automatic shotgun is not something that's actually helping hunters"). Weapons should only be outright outlawed if there is no conceivable legitimate use, such as in the case of a
Davy Crockett, to name an extreme example.
On the other hand, obstructionism should not be acceptable. The ATF should absolutely be able to use any means at their disposal to enforce the law, and that sure as hell includes an electronic database. Guns are not special - if we trust the IRS to have a database of finances (which the government cares about a whole hell of a lot more than weapons), why assume things are suddenly going to get especially tyrannical when it comes to guns? Regulations should apply to all sales, at all times - maybe you can still give weapons a test run at a gun show or whatever, but you're going to need to have all the relevant licenses and such on hand if you want to take one home that day.
Finally, regulations should be designed not to be overly onerous on buyers. If you want to buy a gun or whatever, you should be able to walk into any gun shop, pick something out, and be told, "Okay, I'll get that order processed for you. You'll need licenses X, Y, and Z before you can pick it up - you can schedule exams with the local State branch, or you can get it done at these private examiners if it's more convenient. All of the relevant study materials (if any) are freely available, and here's a list of ways to get any training requirements taken care of, along with ranges that carry the weapon - you can give them this receipt to prove you're practicing with the weapon, or give them your name and SSN and let them look you up in the database."
Poll
7 (6.5%)
Author
Topic: Bay12 Election Night Watch Party (Read 839541 times)