Another senseless death and an idea whose time has come.

[branford]

13. A few thoughts.

Many of you points undeniably imply that owning and carrying a firearm is a privilege permitted by the government. Regardless of whether you agree, it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. It is akin to freedom of speech and religion, not operating a motor vehicle or renting scuba equipment.

More specifically, I personally would have no problem requiring a test and rules similar to that required to own and operate a car in order to own and use firearms. However, despite your analogy, I doubt you would really agree. In most states, all that is required for a driver's license is a simple test about the basic rules of the road that can easily be passed by teenagers. A simple driving competency test is then required, which is also passed by most teenagers. After these two minor requirements, and payment of a modest fee, you are legally permitted to operate you automobile in all jurisdictions in the United States. Moreover, even without a license, you can still own and operate an automobile on private property. There is no psychological testing, background check, waiting period to purchase a car, you are not liable if someone steals your car and uses in criminally or negligently, and insurance is only required to protect others from your own negligence, not criminal misuse. I would note that you do not need a license to purchase gas, oil or other parts for your car.

Lets analogize: If someone passes a simple test about the rules concerning firearm use and self-defense and a short, practical demonstration that they knew how to use firearms, and pay a modest fee, they would receive a license to purchase, own, carry and use firearms anywhere withing the United States. They would not need such a license to carry and use a firearm on their own property or other private property with permission. No license would be needed for maintenance of any firearm or to purchase ammunition. Although most homeowners and renters policies already include issues relating to legal firearm use, I would have no objection to requiring additional insurance. It's already offered, and it's VERY cheap because statistically the chance a lawful firearm owner will injure another negligently with their weapon is very, very small. Note that you cannot procure liability insurance that covers criminal or intentional conduct, and firearms are not different.

I'm always amused by the insurance requirement, as most who advocate it know little about insurance and/or firearms. Insurance is usually just a recommendation to make ownership more difficult and expense, and therefore discourage it. Not only is such a motivation unlawful (think poll tax), it would be so cheap as to be meaningless, and since the NRA is the entity the offers most relevant policies, it would be a windfall for the gun rights organization.

Your requirement that an individual must provide references from family, friends, employers, etc., no less pass state-mandated psychological testing to prove "gun-worthiness" is impractical, arbitrary and and insulting with regard to a Constitutionally-protected activity. You do not need the permission of anyone to enforce a right. It is already also illegal to possess a firearm if you've properly been adjudicated to be a danger to yourself and others. I'm not about to agree to presumptively criminalize mental illness or deny sufferers their Constitutional rights, including the 2A and due process. Note that individuals who suffer mental illness are normally not dangerous, but they are actually at a greater risk of being the victim of a crime.

Your point 8 unequivocally prevents someone from carrying a firearm for self-defense and other lawful activities outside the home, and is a non-starter. The 2A permits people to keep and bear arms. If you want to discuss the advantages of open vs concealed carry, that is an appropriate discussion.

Safe storage laws should take a carrot, rather than stick, approach. First, since you unquestionably have a right to self-defense in your home, you cannot mandate that individuals keep their firearms in such condition (e.g., unloaded, disassembled, etc.) that such weapons cannot quickly and readily be used for immediate defense. To the extent a safe storage law satisfies the foregoing, as a practical matter, proper enforcement is near impossible. The government cannot force you to waive one Constitutional right, the 4A, to employ another. Simply, the authorities cannot just arbitrarily inspect you home for the safe-storage of your weapons or penalize you if you refuse such inspection. I would have no objection to subsidies and tax breaks for trigger locks, safes, etc., however, to encourage their use.

People also do not lose any rights if they have children or even live with a felon or someone mentally ill. It's already illegal to endanger children or provide felons with weapons, but ownership of firearms, again a Constitutional right, by itself, does not grant the government power over anyone's household.

Also, what's the purpose of a waiting period for someone who already owns one or more firearms?