Gun owners need a License, regulate it like Drivers Licenses.

[Saboburns]

Each state to have a DFS(Division of Firearm Safety) just as big and as bossy as the state’s DMV (Division of Motor Vehicles).

To own a firearm you must have a license. To get the license you must jump through a few hoops. Background checks, complete a safety course, pass a written test, pass a proficiency test, and whatever else you all think needs to be added.

Yes all guns will need to be registered. Just like we do autos.

Additionally I would like to see a Licensee fee for every firearm owned. Say $100 a year per firearm. It could be a sliding fee: Less expensive for single shot less dangerous weapons, more expensive for more dangerous weapons. So the more weapons you own the more you’ll have to pay in license no fees. The money can go toward having trained POLICE full time on all campuses. Pay for CCTV. Whatever helps keep our schools safe. Your input welcome here.

I believe regulating firearms should be at least equal to how we regulate automobiles and driving.

Now I’m sure there will be bunches who will chime in and tell me how terrible this idea is. My reply is that our children are being slaughtered, drastic change is needed now. The status quo is not just shameful, it’s complicit in the slaughter.

[msongs]

1. and require insurance nt

[hack89]

6. That would be the easiest part. It would be so cheap that everyone can afford it

it is dirt cheap right now - expanding the risk pool to all gun owners would bring the cost down so low that giving up a cup of coffee now and then is all one would need to do in order to afford it.

Still won't pay for intentional criminal acts but that is besides the point.

[Hangingon]

37. I assume that the ownersgun policy would pay for any damage by that gun.

That should make insurance really cheap. The NRA, alreadythe leading gun insurance provider, will make a fortune.

[hack89]

42. Accidental damage.

Not intentional criminal activity.

[Hangingon]

45. Yes!

[lostnfound]

49. Can someone pay for the cost of replacing the freshman building at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High?

Because they are tearing it down, due to the shooting..
More uncounted costs to add to the burden of America’s gun addiction.

[hack89]

52. Depends on their insurance policy I suspect

but I don't see the point. Even if the gun man was insured, the insurance companies would not pay for anything. They don't pay for deliberate crimes.

[lostnfound]

57. the point: Guns have a huge cost to our society, not paid by gun-owners.

Right wingers argue all day long in favor of user fees on public parks and toll roads...
Gas taxes pay for roads.
Gun manufacturers and owners basically get a free ride for the costs of their hobby.

[hack89]

59. There is an existing federal tax on guns and ammo. Divert it to healthcare

Instead to environmental causes like they presently do.

[Saboburns]

8. No not private insurance

I ‘m not sure private insurance will work. That’s why I didn’t include it. I can go for some type of governmental insurance, where the gun owner pays money to a government entity. But I purposely left out insurance.

That’s really what I call a liscense go fee, it’s a work around to calling it insurance.

But there are smarter folk than me to help figure something out.

Personally I’m not against gun insurance, as a matter of fact I fully support it. I just don’t think private insurance companies will do it.

[Hangingon]

38. I am still dealing with government agencies over insurance payouts for Harvey damage.

It is crystal clear to me and so many other dealing with these agencies that government has no business!

[WillowTree]

33. What kind of insurance? Insurance against what?

[hack89]

2. And this license is good in every state in the Union without question? nt

[USALiberal]

7. Odd question. nt

[hack89]

10. Just making sure it is just like cars and I can move freely in the country

without worry.

[USALiberal]

21. Scared to go somewhere without your gun? nt

[hack89]

25. I don't carry in public. Don't need to

I live in a safe area.

[Saboburns]

14. I dunno, what do you think?

I’m open to suggestions.

[hack89]

15. Yes. National standards are the way to go. nt

[Demsrule86]

22. No car licenses are not good in every state...you move get a new one. And some states may restrict

open carry or have strict laws...the registration is good only for your state.

[hack89]

26. The license coupled with national reprocity should solve that problem. nt

[Demsrule86]

30. No. States should have right to issue licenses as they choose...not right wing NRA

paid of GOP types in Congress.

[hack89]

44. But you do want some national gun control, right?

what bargaining chips are you bringing to the table to get pro-gun states on board? What are you willing to give gun owners in exchange for what you want?

[Demsrule86]

31. Keep it up. At some point the majority who wants regulation will begin voting on it...then you lose

way more than you would with common sense regulation which does not include allowing carry in all states.

[Pope George Ringo II]

34. With this Congress, I wouldn't put a national concealed-carry reciprocity past them

There's a very real possibility it's actually the most immediately likely proposal mentioned here, once they get a quiet period or some other cover.

Not saying it's the best idea, just that it's the one my money is on for happening first.

[Baconator]

66. It makes the most sense...

... to have a clear standard across the board.

[hack89]

43. I don't think so.

I am not concerned.

[EX500rider]

47. If you are a resident of the state u need a new one, driving thru or visiting not so much.

I can drive in all 50 States with my Fla DL.

[Blue_true]

35. If the standards for issuing the license is the same in every state, then why not.

When a vehicle from a state comes into another state, the expectation is that the issuing state has certified the driver. But cops can still run a check on the plate and stop the driver if something is wrong. Cops in a second state must have the right to stop a gun carrier from a first state to insure that person is properly licensed, if that is possible, I have no issue with cross state transport of guns as long as the transport is done safely.

[USALiberal]

3. Most the gun owners I know are fine with registration. Only the nut jobs are paranoid. nt

[hack89]

12. You just put you finger on the problem with registration

the people that accept registration are not the ones you have to worry about. Violent people, crazy people and felons are the ones that should scare you. And they are not going to register their guns.

[Demsrule86]

17. Some people murder people...doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws about murder...

And this would cut down on available guns...and make it more expensive and difficult to get one if you aren't supposed to have one...and you can be charged for carrying one illegally...you walk into a store now and see someone with a gun strapped to his belt, you have to wait until he starts shooting...and guns could be banned from stores, bars and churches.

[hack89]

24. Compliance with registration is usually low

CT and NY, for example, have compliance rates well below 50%. With 300,000,000 unregistered guns in America, the math says there will be hundreds of millions of un-registered guns still.

Canada gave up their long gun registration because it was expensive, fraught with error and they could not show it impacted crime in anyway.

I would not count on registration being the end all solution - it will be massively expensive and will face enormous civil disobedience.

[Demsrule86]

32. That is fine...then we have a reason to lock them up...should be a felony conviction.

[hack89]

41. Coming back to reality for a moment

the reasons they would fail are the reasons they will never pass in the first place.

Hypotheticals are fun but you can only take they so far before reality intrudes.

[Saboburns]

18. Indeed

But let’s not scrap the entire program because of this.

There are bunches of people who don’t pay car insurance and drive uninsured. But we we don’t scrap the program because of it.

[azureblue]

27. then

make the penalty for possessing an unregistered gun draconian and un negotiable. Like 5 years on top of whatever else the criminal is convicted for and no parole or reduced sentence.

[hack89]

28. Here's the funny thing

felons cannot be required by law to register their guns due to 5th amendment concerns (Haynes v. United States).

So any requirement for registration is moot to anyone who illegally owns a gun. Which are the people that should really concern you.

[hack89]

29. Btw, Adam Lanza's gun was registered with the state of CT

Last edited Mon Feb 19, 2018, 03:33 PM - Edit history (1)

how does registration deter any mass killer if they don't have a record that makes them ineligible to own a gun? Do you think the Las Vegas killer would have had any qualms about registering his guns? He knew he would not survive.

[Blue_true]

36. The guns were owned by his mom.

Part of registration should include that the potential gun owner can't be adjudged as having mental health problems AND no one living with the person or who can come in contact with the guns can have mental health issues. I will promise you that the DMV will not give you a license if you have untreated mental health problems or you have a relative who does who has access to the car.

You can claim that having licensing of gun ownership is intrusive, but a person can say the same about being licensed to drive a car, you have no right to either. To use your unalienable right to own a gun, the founders did not mention motor vehicles, airplanes, hospitals, public highways in the Constitution, so all of those things should be illegal to use, using your logic. The Founders made the Constitution amendable because they had enough wisdom to understand that the document had to be applicable for the period that it was being applied.

[hack89]

46. Ok. Good luck. nt

[Blue_true]

48. Living in a society requires that we occasionally abide by decision that we don't like.

If the majority of Americans ethically chose to restrict the tenets of gun ownership and have nothing but the best interests of society at heart, then I am ok with the application of force against anyone that attempts to circumvent that requirement. Unjust laws should be fought, ethical laws that were enacted after great deliberation should be enforced.

[hack89]

51. The Republican immigration policies are "in societies best interest"

So ICE has carte blanche to apply force as needed?

You are swinging a double edged sword there.

[Blue_true]

53. Did you even notice "ethical" attached to my reply.

The republican position on immigration is backward, unethical and even immoral. It should be fought by any ethical person. Setting restrictions on gun ownership is not wrong if done with deliberation and ethics, there is a difference, a very big difference. Some people have proposed a total ban on guns, I don't feel that way, there are legitimate reasons for a person having a gun. But I also think that any person should be required to demonstrate that he or she can secure the gun AND use it properly before being given access to a gun, anyone that violates Taft requirement should have the gun taken away and their ability to own one in the future restricted.

[fescuerescue]

56. What state is that true?

" I will promise you that the DMV will not give you a license if you have untreated mental health problems or you have a relative who does who has access to the car. "

I've been licensed in two states and neither had access to my medical records, let alone my relatives or their proximity to my cars.

The closest I've seen is that they want to insure that my vision is ok.

[Straw Man]

63. Mental health.

I will promise you that the DMV will not give you a license if you have untreated mental health problems or you have a relative who does who has access to the car.

I don't know where you live, but my NY driver's license has no stipulations whatsoever about having relatives with mental illness.

[Pope George Ringo II]

4. We don't register all autos, though

There are farm trucks running around which haven't seen either a street or a registration sticker in years. Decades, even.

Not necessarily arguing with the licensing part, but I'm not keen on auto registration as the model. Particularly since the unregistered autos are the ones which tend to have firearms hanging in them.

[Saboburns]

11. No we dont

But we don’t scrap the entire auto registration program because a few aren’t registered.

Do we.

[Pope George Ringo II]

20. But a model which registers all would be preferable, no?

Deliberately aiming at a goal with known loopholes just seems odd to me.

[Demsrule86]

13. They can't be driven on the roads though...my friend got a ticket.

[Pope George Ringo II]

16. I'm just worried about a model where you can shoot an unregistered firearm anywhere but public roads

Not my first choice.

[Demsrule86]

19. Good think you pointed that out...make sure we insist on registration.

[Nevernose]

60. There are tons of guns still in Aus/UK

But that’s the point: they’re on farms or otherwise not taken out of hiding, and there are strict penalties if people DO get caught with them.

We keep track of VIN numbers. We keep track of car titles and drivers license numbers. It’s 2018; a database of those things for guns isn’t that complicated. We’ll never catch all the bad guys, never prevent all crime, but there are many perfectly reasonable steps American society should take for public safety

[Pope George Ringo II]

61. But the unregistered cars aren't hiding. There's no law saying you have to register a car.

That's not a great model if you want to do something with guns.

[Historic NY]

5. Republicans want to have nationwide carry...

not all states even have licensing per se.

[Demsrule86]

9. Also insurance.

[WillowTree]

39. Since the other poster hasn't responded, I'll ask you.

What kind of insurance? Insurance against what?

[azureblue]

23. the simplest way

is to have a live fire proficiency test on the gun to be purchased, using static and moving targets. You don't make the score, you don't get the gun. Just like an on the road drver's ed test. Oh, yeah, and retest every other year, including a gun inspection. If you fail, you lose your gun, until you can pass a re test.

If the NRA would ever get its head out of its butt long enough, it would see that it could return to its roots and make a ton of money in the process, doing the testing. But they know that most of their members are lousy shots and would fail the tests....

[madville]

40. That's not going to prevent school shootings

Extra armed security in the schools could be a deterrent, shooters purposely choose targets where they know it is least likely for them to run into armed resistance, hence schools make the best targets because they are typically "gun-free" zones by state laws.

If someone can legally buy a firearm then jumping through a few extra hoops and running up the credit card a little more before their big massacre isn't going to stop them.

I think we need a more robust mental health system first and foremost. The States also need the power to lock up/commit individuals that clearly demonstrate these warning signs. That's going to be expensive but it's worth it to lock the dangerous people in our society.

[lostnfound]

50. Background checks would help a lot, if they included social media or personal connections

Such checks are required for numerous jobs — for safety of public.

[Baconator]

67. What background check are you thinking of that would have stopped this shooting?

I don't think he had been convicted of anything other than getting kicked out of HS and seeing a shrink.

The best case would have been a flag that came as a result of the FBI investigation from a tip.

[FBaggins]

54. 50 posts and hardly a mention of the Constitution

Which doesn’t restrict the governments ability to infringe on auto ownership... so regulations of auto ownership/usage need only have a rational basis.

[nolabels]

55. The same reason we have stop lights and signs, warning signs, divided highways and drunk driving law

It's not sane or safe for our government to let it's citizens kill and maim each other or destroy others property. It makes for a very unstable population

[Lee-Lee]

58. In places that require a license, has it helped?

Illinois has required all gun owners be licensed for a long time, as an example.

Has it reduced crime there or kept criminals from getting guns?

[aikoaiko]

62. So one test at 16 or 17 and you're good to go for life as long as you renew every 10 years like DLs?

And you don't have to register or insure cars that are kept on private property, including cars that would be illegal to operate on public roads (but can be transported on trailers on public roads).

I think your suggestion let's 16-year olds have unregistered machines guns on private property with no background checks.


I'm being facetious, but, more seriously, I do think there is an analogy to be made as long as its really about safety and not discouraging ownership.

[Saboburns]

64. I am always saddened when DemocraticUnderground tells me Gun control measures wont work.

Anytime any Gun control measures are offered here, ‘Democrats’ from all over can’t wait to tell us that it won’t work, that’s it’s a stupid idea to even ponder. These same people never offer any ideas, but they sure seem to like the status quo.

Did you ever wonder why? I wonder why.

I would think there would be loads of ideas, heaps of support for gun control. That we would be rabid for anything and everything, ideas would flow like water. That there would be a fire lit within us to DO SOMETHING, do anything, to protect ourselves and children.

But that does not happen here.

Why is that?

[Baconator]

65. If someone is willing to buy weapons, slaughter people and die themselves or go to jail for life...

... are you under the impression that a few hundred bucks in taxes will somehow deter them?