Simplest gun policy

[SCantiGOP]

Guns should have the same restrictions as cars.
Owners must be of age, have had training, and passed testing to get a license.
Then, registration and insurance are required. Any major violation or enough minor violations and you can lose your right to own a gun for a period of time (similar to speeding tickets) or go to jail (similar to DUI).
Failure to follow these rules would result in fines, jail and/or confiscation of the gun.

The NRA will argue that guns are a right, not a privilege; sane people will argue that not being murdered is also a right and there is no undue burden to treating guns like cars.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

1. Except none of those restrictions actually exist on car purchases or ownership

They only exist on DRIVING, and specifically only on public roads.

Gun ownership is actually already more restricted than car ownership, which has like, 0 laws/conditions, other than that you pay for the car.

Just sayin'

[wnylib]

8. Gun ownership restrictions depend on the state

so it's not possible to accurately claim that gun ownership is more restricted than car ownership.

Besides, you're not making parallel comparisons. The OP compares driving licenses with a proposal for gun licenses. You compared gun ownership to car ownership. Apples and oranges. The OP is about how cars and guns are used, not how they are owned.

Just sayin.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

14. Mmmm ... yeah ... I disagree.

"Guns should have the same restrictions as cars.
Owners must be of age, have had training, and passed testing to get a license.
Then, registration and insurance are required. Any major violation or enough minor violations and you can lose your right to own a gun for a period of time (similar to speeding tickets) or go to jail (similar to DUI)."

The post is confusing the concepts of car ownership and driving licenses there my friend, otherwise I'd have not said what I said. You actually never lose your right to own a car, you just lose your right to operate it on public roads. Registration and insurance are also not mandated for 'ownership' of a car.

And there's literally no regulation on car ownership ANYWHERE, but many places have SOME restrictions on gun ownership. So, at BEST, car ownership and gun ownership have equal restrictions, but in most places ... not.

[hippywife]

16. Um, nope.

OP: Owners must be of age, have had training, and passed testing to get a license.

You even repeated the OP's exact wording and still missed it.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

21. Um, nope, because it depends on how you read that ambiguous sentence

OP: Owners must be of age, have had training, and passed testing to get a license.

Here's my reading: That is false because (car) owners do not have to have a license, ergo they neither must have training, nor pass testing.

Now, convince me that my reading is, by logical or semantical necessity, inaccurate.

[hippywife]

22. The rest of us read it as "driving"...

not just car ownership, just as the OP meant. Anything else is being pedantic to prove no point whatsoever.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

24. There IS actually a point ...

To wit: there's freaking, what, like 500,000,000 guns already owned by 10's of millions of the US population (or whatever it is, I know it's more than 1 per person).

How do you propose, exactly, that a 'licensing' law is enforced again the many 10's of millions of people who keep their guns in their homes? It is equally as impractical a concept as going thru every yard and barn and garage in the USA to make sure the nobody without a legal driver's license ... is in possession of a motor vehicle.

Bottom-line I think 'treat guns like cars' is just not a great analogy, mostly because 'enforcement' on automobiles takes place on the public roadways, not in people's private space, and isn't actually related to ownership.

To be clear, I hate guns, I've never owned one, and they could all vanish into thin air tomorrow and I'd LOVE IT

[hippywife]

26. But since they don't do that with cars...

why would they start doing that with guns? If the law says a person has to be trained and licensed to qualify to own a gun, and ALL of their guns have to be both reported and registered, then if they don't do that, it should be charged as a felony. Multiple felonies if they have more than one. No grandfathering, either.

Treating gun ownership like car ownership and driving is something most people can understand and be comfortable with, because it's something they're used to already.

I'd be more than happy to see them ALL gone, as well. But that isn't likely to happen. So, we have to start somewhere. If we don't, that's like saying, "Oh well, no use in passing laws because people won't follow them." throw up our hands and let the carnage continue.

ETA: also insurance and safe storage requirements.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

30. Yeah, but ... your proposal is not like car ownership, it's specifically like driving

which is my whole point.

But ... driving takes place in the public sphere, pretty much by definition.

Car ownership is personal.

You and I may think it's a 'good analogy', that 'people will understand', but there's zero chance the SCOTUS is going to, nor will anyone who doesn't want to have to get a 'gun owners license'. By definition this means they go down on record somewhere as 'person who owns guns'.

IMHO it's not workable, both because of the dreadful interpretation of 2A from Heller .. thanks Fat Tony , and because principally it's a very different idea in these two instances of car driving vs gun ownership.

We DEFINITELY should be able to regulate public carrying, cause that's where the two ideas intersect, and maybe when we get back a Justice or two we can start to revert the damage to the legal restrictions around this matter, which used to be accepted as 'logical' ... BUT you're still left with the problem where people like this shooter today don't give a fuck about the law, obviously.

[panader0]

41. I get your point. Some people around here have two or three or more old cars in their yards

or sheds. None are licensed or registered or insured because they are not driven.

[SCantiGOP]

18. OK, Hugh. You win

You can buy a car without restrictions, you just can’t drive it off the lot.
Not sure what point you are trying to make with an irrelevant argument about a very serious subject.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

23. I'm all for gun licenses ... fuck it were up to me, every gun on earth would evaporate

this afternoon. Fuck guns, I've never owned one, and glad I've never felt the need to do so.

I just don't think car ownership is really the best analogy, that's all my friend

[wnylib]

19. Actually, you can lose your car if it is used in the commission of a crime.

But, yes, you can buy another car, of course.

So, if you want to continue the car ownership and use comparison with gun ownership and use, and make them equivalent, then no gun registration or insurance for guns on your own property. But, as soon as you carry them off of your property, all registration and licensing laws would apply.

It would make society safer if people had to register and insure their guns for off property use and then abide by gun ownership and usage laws when off of their own property or else lose their license and ability to carry off of their property.

Sure, some people would violate the laws, just as some people now violate car registration and driving license laws. The fact that some people will violate laws is not a reason to not have laws.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

31. We're in total agreement here ...

'Taking it off your property' is where the analogy becomes a lot more sound, and there's definitely legal precedence, though it's been eroded, there was a time when that sort of restriction was seen as perfectly logical. i.e. "License to Carry". We need a couple SCOTUS seats back though to make a reverse of the recent trends ... possible.

[W_HAMILTON]

32. I don't know what state you live in...

...but you most certainly do have to have insurance here before you purchase a car where I live.

You also must register your vehicle with the state and provide the name of your insurance company when you do so (which is then checked against some database they have to verify insurance).

What state do you live in where none of this is applicable?

[Hugh_Lebowski]

34. A state where I can walk o'er to my neighbors house

hand him 1000 dollars cash for the rusted '55 Chevy with a thrown rod that's been up on jacks in his front yard for 30 years, and he hands me the title and keys to the vehicle, which I drag across our adjacent property using my tractor and put in my barn out back ... et voila, I now own the '55 Chevy ... without running afoul of any law. Even without insuring or registering jack shit, or having a drivers license.

What state do you live in where you CAN'T do that?

[W_HAMILTON]

43. I sure don't see your state listed.

And I can guess why, since I could easily point out that what you are doing in your hypothetical DOES, in fact, run afoul of your state's laws.

If you think it's not against the law, go try that same thing at a reputable car dealership (read: one that actually follows their state's law) and see how that goes.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

44. I'm in AZ and I've never done anything like that, but I'm pretty sure you legally could

"Title 28, Chapter 7 states that “every motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer that is operated, moved or left standing on any highway in the State must be registered for the current year.”"

This wording is why I specified the theoretical case as I did. Dealerships have different rules because they're a business.

"The AZ DMV needs you to take these steps

Provide the vehicle title
Signed by both parties, or
Notarized
Complete a Title and Registration Application (96-0236)
Submit a lien release if there is one on the title
Pay the title and registration fees
Completing this process will award you with the title of the vehicle. You should register the vehicle as soon as you can after the title transfer to begin driving it on state roads."

So there is one thing you need to do involving the government in order to make you the official owner, but registration in not required unless you're driving it, nor do you need a DL or insurance ... until you do so.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

2. Sounds like "well-regulated" and sane policy to me.

[sarisataka]

3. Will you also be able to carry

Said gun in all public areas of all fifty states like you can use the car on roads?

Oh and will we add NCIS background checks to buying cars from dealers or drop it from guns, just to be sure everything is the same?

[edisdead]

6. They aren't the same.

I don’t believe it was the poster’s intent that they should be the same.

Personally I don’t have a problem with gun ownership. It is the carrying, securing, and usage parts I have issues with.

[sarisataka]

7. I agree with you

It is just very often I see the 'treat guns like cars' meme. Yet that isn't really what they want...

[edisdead]

9. I think there are a few things that could apply though

[wnylib]

12. Agree. And how they are carried, secured and used

can be linked to the license to use them. If improperly used, secured, or carried, or if not insured, the gun license could be revoked. If the owner violates a revocation and continues to use the gun, then it could be confiscated.

[madville]

4. And many people will ignore those restrictions

Just like they do in cars. Here in Florida 27% of all drivers are uninsured and more than 2 million drivers are driving with expired, suspended or revoked licenses.

[Kingofalldems]

11. So should we give up registering cars and such?

[madville]

17. Not particularly

Just stating that there would be a high rate of non-compliance.

Plus any such requirements requiring people to pay fees to exercise an established constitutional right would likely get struck down in court, much like a tax or fees on voting would.

[wnylib]

13. Well, in the case of guns, the gun licensing laws

could be written to allow confiscation for violations of the licensing and usage laws.

[Lurker Deluxe]

5. Well ...

None of the stated things are actually true.

Anyone can "own" a car, drive a car, or for that matter set it on fire.

All of the things you list are for use of a car on public roads. If you own property you can have a car and do whatever you want with it without it being registered, licensed, or insured, and you need no training or license to do it.

And yes, as currently legislated, firearms are a right.

[edisdead]

10. Most mass shootings aren't occurring on THEIR own property.

If I run someone down in my car on someone else’s private property I am likely not getting away with it.

[Lurker Deluxe]

15. Correct

However.

The gun was certainly on private property before it was used in a crime.

Comparing the ownership and "rules" for guns and cars is a fool's errand. There are no restrictions on car ownership of any kind, only for operation on public roads. There are tons of rules for gun ownership, even on private property.

A felon could have 50 acres of cars and 1 gun. Gun would be an issue ... cars, not so much.

[onethatcares]

25. nail, meet hammer

and that felon might have had 8 traffic tickets to qualify them as such.

once a felon, always a felon. Right?

[edisdead]

28. So what? There aren't enough.

And Guns are designed to kill. That is their primary purpose, don’t tell me about target shooting. There ought to be more restrictions on items used to kill.

[WarGamer]

20. No problem... just need a different Constitution.

[edisdead]

29. Bullshit.

2A does not say there cannot be regulation on guns.

[friend of a friend]

36. It is not what the 2nd Amendment says that counts, it is what The Supreme Court says it says.

There really aren't checks and balances between the three branches of government. The executive branch and the legislative branch have some checks and balances, but there aren't any checks and balances between the Supreme Court and the other 2. If the Supreme Court says that something is unconstitutional, the only thing the legislative body can do is rewrite the bill and hope the Supreme Court accepts it. The president and Congress can not overrule the Supreme Court.

[edisdead]

37. So why hasn't the court done that?

There are plenty of regulations on arms that the court hasn’t upended. I suppose here is where you say “yet”.

The constitution is the framework upon which law is made and measured against. That is is currently believed ti state that the people have a right to own guns doesn’t mean that those guns cannot be regulated.

[friend of a friend]

40. Congress and states must keep writing laws such as banning certain weapons.

We don't know what the Supreme Court will allow until laws are written. I don't think that enough laws are being written. I wonder what would happen if we flooded the courts with new laws.

[Zeitghost]

27. Outside of the insurance requirement

That's basically what we have here in California. You have to be 21, pass a safety test, register it with the state, wait 10 days and then you can buy a firearm. And the gun violence, while a little better than average in the country, still persists. Largely because those who are willing to kill someone aren't really bothered by breaking registration laws.

The insurance issue is pointless. Insurance doesn't cover criminal behavior so it wouldn't do anything beneficial.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

33. The point is not the 'coverage' of insurance, the point is the 'cost' of insurance (nt)

[Zeitghost]

35. The cost is negligible

Insurance covers unintentional accidents. The damage caused by firearms is almost entirely from intentional and often criminal acts that would not be covered by a policy. Which means the cost of a policy would be very low.

That's if you could force someone to purchase an insurance policy, which would likely be ruled unconstitutional, especially if it was being done in order to impose a burden on someone trying to exercise a right. Like poll taxes, that's not going to fly.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

38. How do you know the cost is negligible when it doesn't exist?

And no, I don't think it's 'mostly caused' by intentional/criminal acts. Those are just the ones 'we care about' and get a lot of media coverage.

It can't be framed as 'in order to impose a burden', on that point I'd agree.

However, since we're talking about the 'driving' analogy here ... insurance companies could be the ones to impose additional premiums where someone's past behavior is determined 'risky', as with someone with speeding tickets or DUI's would have.

Agree, it ain't passing the muster of the dirty 6, but maybe if we're able to turn a couple seats ... If these fucks can overturn Roe, maybe we could overturn the bullshit decision that was Heller. Not immediately helpful, but just a thought.

[Zeitghost]

39. Because it does exist, through the NRA and other groups

And also because I understand how insurance works. Accidental shootings are fairly rare, property damage is essentially non-existent and you would have tens of millions of forced customers. The actuarial tables would point towards a small premium.

Is it your belief that the majority of gun shot victims are shot accidentally? I'm not sure how you could come to that position. The majority are suicides and most of the rest are homicides.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

Those with "risky" gun behavior (anyone with a criminal conviction) are generally going to be barred from gun ownership already.

[IbogaProject]

42. More like interstate heavy trucks

And I'd like a requirement that each gun owner must be part of a 'militia' who are collectively responsible for their members. The issue is the loose rules around the sale of the arms themselves. I want everyone who wants one to have them, but there needs to be insurance, with an annual assessment for any uninsured gun injuries. Us non gun owners should not be paying any of this. Pull your own weight gun lovers.