House Will Hold Vote to Wrest Gun Control From Washington, D.C., Government Options

[Frenchy]

WASHINGTON--

House leaders have agreed to allow a vote next month on a bill that would end local handgun control in the District of Columbia.

The measure was filed last week by several conservative Democrats, and supporters say it has a good chance of passing the House. Its prospects in the Senate are unclear.

The Supreme Court struck down the city's 32-year-old handgun ban in June. Since then, D.C. lawmakers have passed emergency legislation that maintains strict regulations.

The House bill seeks to eliminate those measures.

The legislation would allow D.C. residents to own handguns without registering them with police if they meet federal requirements for firearms ownership.

The bill also would end a requirement that owners keep their handguns unloaded and disassembled in their homes and would repeal the city's ban on most semiautomatic handguns.

link

[amy]

WASHINGTON--

House leaders have agreed to allow a vote next month on a bill that would end local handgun control in the District of Columbia.

The measure was filed last week by several conservative Democrats, and supporters say it has a good chance of passing the House. Its prospects in the Senate are unclear.

The Supreme Court struck down the city's 32-year-old handgun ban in June. Since then, D.C. lawmakers have passed emergency legislation that maintains strict regulations.

The House bill seeks to eliminate those measures.

The legislation would allow D.C. residents to own handguns without registering them with police if they meet federal requirements for firearms ownership.

The bill also would end a requirement that owners keep their handguns unloaded and disassembled in their homes and would repeal the city's ban on most semiautomatic handguns.

link

Question:
Do guns and their owners have to be registered with the federal govt? I've searched but I can't seem to find that info.
If not, I believe all gun purchases should be registered with the federal govt. and people should be licensed to own a gun of any type.
Gun owners should have to pass a written and practical test before they can be licensed to own a gun.
We all have to pass a written and road test to be licensed to drive a vehicle.
Any logical reason why this is not an intelligent approach to gun ownership?

[Terra]

Question:
Do guns and their owners have to be registered with the federal govt? I've searched but I can't seem to find that info.
If not, I believe all gun purchases should be registered with the federal govt. and people should be licensed to own a gun of any type.
Gun owners should have to pass a written and practical test before they can be licensed to own a gun.
We all have to pass a written and road test to be licensed to drive a vehicle.
Any logical reason why this is not an intelligent approach to gun ownership?

Each state passes it's own laws. Here in Nevada to purchase your first gun you must wait 72 hours for the cooling down period, if you already have a permit then there is no cool-down period. They also do a background check. What can disqualify you:

Of course, a permit will not be issued to a person who is an ex-felon who has not had his civil rights legally restored, including the right to possess firearms.
The statute also provides that a permit will not be issued to a person who:

1. Currently has a warrant outstanding for his arrest.
2. Has ever been declared by a Judge to be either incompetent or insane.
3. Within the past five years has been admitted to a mental health facility.
4. Within the past five years has been a habitual user of alcohol or controlled substances, or been convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), or been committed to a rehabilitation program for alcohol or controlled substances.
5. Within the past three years has been convicted in any state of a misdemeanor of a violent nature, or involving force, or threatened use of force.
6. Has been convicted of a felony in any state.
7. Has been convicted of a crime involving violence or stalking, or under a restraining order for domestic violence.
8. Is on parole or probation.
9. Within the past five years has been a subject of a court requirement imposed as a condition of withholding a judgment of conviction of a felony, or suspension of a sentence for conviction of a felony.
10. Has made a false statement on an application for a concealed weapon permit.

After you register & get past the above at the Police Dept then:


Brady Background Check
All counties implement the national background check through the Nevada Highway Patrol. By State Law, any private party may access Nevada's background check system for the purpose of checking the background of a potential gun purchaser. Currently, the check costs $25.00.


I don't have to have like a "Terra has passed a gun safety class" license to get the gun registered or purchase one - nor do I need to register anything but a handgun. IE: shotguns, rifles they are not needed.

The only way here you have to go through a pretty extensive licensing is if you want to also have a Concealed Carry permit.

Here is a pretty good timeline of major FEDERAL laws (like the Brady Bill)

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html

[Frenchy]

There is no federal mandate for the registration of individually owned guns. There is however a paper trail on every gun sold by a dealer.

[Frenchy]

WASHINGTON--

House leaders have agreed to allow a vote next month on a bill that would end local handgun control in the District of Columbia.

The measure was filed last week by several conservative Democrats, and supporters say it has a good chance of passing the House. Its prospects in the Senate are unclear.

The Supreme Court struck down the city's 32-year-old handgun ban in June. Since then, D.C. lawmakers have passed emergency legislation that maintains strict regulations.

The House bill seeks to eliminate those measures.

The legislation would allow D.C. residents to own handguns without registering them with police if they meet federal requirements for firearms ownership.

The bill also would end a requirement that owners keep their handguns unloaded and disassembled in their homes and would repeal the city's ban on most semiautomatic handguns.

link

Question:
Do guns and their owners have to be registered with the federal govt? I've searched but I can't seem to find that info.
If not, I believe all gun purchases should be registered with the federal govt. and people should be licensed to own a gun of any type.
Gun owners should have to pass a written and practical test before they can be licensed to own a gun.
We all have to pass a written and road test to be licensed to drive a vehicle.
Any logical reason why this is not an intelligent approach to gun ownership?

How will this reduce crime, amy?

This post has been edited by Frenchy: Dec 5 2008, 08:47 AM

[amy]

WASHINGTON--

House leaders have agreed to allow a vote next month on a bill that would end local handgun control in the District of Columbia.

The measure was filed last week by several conservative Democrats, and supporters say it has a good chance of passing the House. Its prospects in the Senate are unclear.

The Supreme Court struck down the city's 32-year-old handgun ban in June. Since then, D.C. lawmakers have passed emergency legislation that maintains strict regulations.

The House bill seeks to eliminate those measures.

The legislation would allow D.C. residents to own handguns without registering them with police if they meet federal requirements for firearms ownership.

The bill also would end a requirement that owners keep their handguns unloaded and disassembled in their homes and would repeal the city's ban on most semiautomatic handguns.

link

Question:
Do guns and their owners have to be registered with the federal govt? I've searched but I can't seem to find that info.
If not, I believe all gun purchases should be registered with the federal govt. and people should be licensed to own a gun of any type.
Gun owners should have to pass a written and practical test before they can be licensed to own a gun.
We all have to pass a written and road test to be licensed to drive a vehicle.
Any logical reason why this is not an intelligent approach to gun ownership?

How will this reduce crime, amy?

I wasn't addressing the reducing crime issue, here. It wouldn't reduce crime. But, it would most likely reduce accidents. It just makes sense that gun owners should have to demonstrate a knowledge of their guns, knowledge of their state's gun laws and a knowledge of how to use them before they can legally operate a weapon of any type. I would be far more likely to support gun ownership if the gun groups would support measures like this. It's not an attempt to 'disarm" citizens or force onerous and unnecessary restrictions on ownership and use.I sure don't want unlicensed, untrained drivers on the road...why would I want untrained, unknowledgeable gun owners anywhere in our society? Doesn't make sense, Frenchy. With freedom comes certain responsibility.
Why not?

[Frenchy]

WASHINGTON--

House leaders have agreed to allow a vote next month on a bill that would end local handgun control in the District of Columbia.

The measure was filed last week by several conservative Democrats, and supporters say it has a good chance of passing the House. Its prospects in the Senate are unclear.

The Supreme Court struck down the city's 32-year-old handgun ban in June. Since then, D.C. lawmakers have passed emergency legislation that maintains strict regulations.

The House bill seeks to eliminate those measures.

The legislation would allow D.C. residents to own handguns without registering them with police if they meet federal requirements for firearms ownership.

The bill also would end a requirement that owners keep their handguns unloaded and disassembled in their homes and would repeal the city's ban on most semiautomatic handguns.

link

Question:
Do guns and their owners have to be registered with the federal govt? I've searched but I can't seem to find that info.
If not, I believe all gun purchases should be registered with the federal govt. and people should be licensed to own a gun of any type.
Gun owners should have to pass a written and practical test before they can be licensed to own a gun.
We all have to pass a written and road test to be licensed to drive a vehicle.
Any logical reason why this is not an intelligent approach to gun ownership?

How will this reduce crime, amy?

I wasn't addressing the reducing crime issue, here. It wouldn't reduce crime. But, it would most likely reduce accidents. It just makes sense that gun owners should have to demonstrate a knowledge of their guns, knowledge of their state's gun laws and a knowledge of how to use them before they can legally operate a weapon of any type. I would be far more likely to support gun ownership if the gun groups would support measures like this. It's not an attempt to 'disarm" citizens or force onerous and unnecessary restrictions on ownership and use.I sure don't want unlicensed, untrained drivers on the road...why would I want untrained, unknowledgeable gun owners anywhere in our society? Doesn't make sense, Frenchy. With freedom comes certain responsibility.
Why not?

Would you like to compare death and injury by automobile vs. guns? How about swimming pools and kids?...Just playing devil's advocate here.
Regulation is great if it works.

Leading Causes of Death in the United StatesSome numbers...


This post has been edited by Frenchy: Dec 5 2008, 10:40 AM

[amy]

WASHINGTON--

House leaders have agreed to allow a vote next month on a bill that would end local handgun control in the District of Columbia.

The measure was filed last week by several conservative Democrats, and supporters say it has a good chance of passing the House. Its prospects in the Senate are unclear.

The Supreme Court struck down the city's 32-year-old handgun ban in June. Since then, D.C. lawmakers have passed emergency legislation that maintains strict regulations.

The House bill seeks to eliminate those measures.

The legislation would allow D.C. residents to own handguns without registering them with police if they meet federal requirements for firearms ownership.

The bill also would end a requirement that owners keep their handguns unloaded and disassembled in their homes and would repeal the city's ban on most semiautomatic handguns.

link

Question:
Do guns and their owners have to be registered with the federal govt? I've searched but I can't seem to find that info.
If not, I believe all gun purchases should be registered with the federal govt. and people should be licensed to own a gun of any type.
Gun owners should have to pass a written and practical test before they can be licensed to own a gun.
We all have to pass a written and road test to be licensed to drive a vehicle.
Any logical reason why this is not an intelligent approach to gun ownership?

How will this reduce crime, amy?

I wasn't addressing the reducing crime issue, here. It wouldn't reduce crime. But, it would most likely reduce accidents. It just makes sense that gun owners should have to demonstrate a knowledge of their guns, knowledge of their state's gun laws and a knowledge of how to use them before they can legally operate a weapon of any type. I would be far more likely to support gun ownership if the gun groups would support measures like this. It's not an attempt to 'disarm" citizens or force onerous and unnecessary restrictions on ownership and use.I sure don't want unlicensed, untrained drivers on the road...why would I want untrained, unknowledgeable gun owners anywhere in our society? Doesn't make sense, Frenchy. With freedom comes certain responsibility.
Why not?

Would you like to compare death and injury by automobile vs. guns? How about swimming pools and kids?...Just playing devil's advocate here.
Regulation is great if it works.

There would be more accidents if people were not trained and educated before they are issued a driver's license. Most communities, if not all, mandate appropriate fencing around home swimming pools.
I can't take gun advocates seriously unless they are willing to look at sensible standards for ownership. I would think they would want standards like the ones I mentioned. What does it say about their gun ownership "philosophy" if they're not in favor of education and training before being able to use a weapon? The military and law enforcement officers are trained...highly trained, and for good reasons. The average citizen wouldn't need that type of specialized training....just common sense basics. Why would serious gun advocacy groups be opposed to this? Makes no sense.

[amy]

I will add, that being licensed would mean passing a tests(s). A person could gain their knowledge and expertise from anyone or any source....it wouldn't require a formal fee based training program. Learning to drive does not have to been accomplished through a driving school.

[amy]

Question:
Do guns and their owners have to be registered with the federal govt? I've searched but I can't seem to find that info.
If not, I believe all gun purchases should be registered with the federal govt. and people should be licensed to own a gun of any type.
Gun owners should have to pass a written and practical test before they can be licensed to own a gun.
We all have to pass a written and road test to be licensed to drive a vehicle.
Any logical reason why this is not an intelligent approach to gun ownership?

Each state passes it's own laws. Here in Nevada to purchase your first gun you must wait 72 hours for the cooling down period, if you already have a permit then there is no cool-down period. They also do a background check. What can disqualify you:

Of course, a permit will not be issued to a person who is an ex-felon who has not had his civil rights legally restored, including the right to possess firearms.
The statute also provides that a permit will not be issued to a person who:

1. Currently has a warrant outstanding for his arrest.
2. Has ever been declared by a Judge to be either incompetent or insane.
3. Within the past five years has been admitted to a mental health facility.
4. Within the past five years has been a habitual user of alcohol or controlled substances, or been convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), or been committed to a rehabilitation program for alcohol or controlled substances.
5. Within the past three years has been convicted in any state of a misdemeanor of a violent nature, or involving force, or threatened use of force.
6. Has been convicted of a felony in any state.
7. Has been convicted of a crime involving violence or stalking, or under a restraining order for domestic violence.
8. Is on parole or probation.
9. Within the past five years has been a subject of a court requirement imposed as a condition of withholding a judgment of conviction of a felony, or suspension of a sentence for conviction of a felony.
10. Has made a false statement on an application for a concealed weapon permit.

After you register & get past the above at the Police Dept then:


Brady Background Check
All counties implement the national background check through the Nevada Highway Patrol. By State Law, any private party may access Nevada's background check system for the purpose of checking the background of a potential gun purchaser. Currently, the check costs $25.00.


I don't have to have like a "Terra has passed a gun safety class" license to get the gun registered or purchase one - nor do I need to register anything but a handgun. IE: shotguns, rifles they are not needed.

The only way here you have to go through a pretty extensive licensing is if you want to also have a Concealed Carry permit.

Here is a pretty good timeline of major FEDERAL laws (like the Brady Bill)

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html

Thanks, Terra, for all this info!

[Frenchy]

WASHINGTON--

House leaders have agreed to allow a vote next month on a bill that would end local handgun control in the District of Columbia.

The measure was filed last week by several conservative Democrats, and supporters say it has a good chance of passing the House. Its prospects in the Senate are unclear.

The Supreme Court struck down the city's 32-year-old handgun ban in June. Since then, D.C. lawmakers have passed emergency legislation that maintains strict regulations.

The House bill seeks to eliminate those measures.

The legislation would allow D.C. residents to own handguns without registering them with police if they meet federal requirements for firearms ownership.

The bill also would end a requirement that owners keep their handguns unloaded and disassembled in their homes and would repeal the city's ban on most semiautomatic handguns.

link

Question:
Do guns and their owners have to be registered with the federal govt? I've searched but I can't seem to find that info.
If not, I believe all gun purchases should be registered with the federal govt. and people should be licensed to own a gun of any type.
Gun owners should have to pass a written and practical test before they can be licensed to own a gun.
We all have to pass a written and road test to be licensed to drive a vehicle.
Any logical reason why this is not an intelligent approach to gun ownership?

How will this reduce crime, amy?

I wasn't addressing the reducing crime issue, here. It wouldn't reduce crime. But, it would most likely reduce accidents. It just makes sense that gun owners should have to demonstrate a knowledge of their guns, knowledge of their state's gun laws and a knowledge of how to use them before they can legally operate a weapon of any type. I would be far more likely to support gun ownership if the gun groups would support measures like this. It's not an attempt to 'disarm" citizens or force onerous and unnecessary restrictions on ownership and use.I sure don't want unlicensed, untrained drivers on the road...why would I want untrained, unknowledgeable gun owners anywhere in our society? Doesn't make sense, Frenchy. With freedom comes certain responsibility.
Why not?

Would you like to compare death and injury by automobile vs. guns? How about swimming pools and kids?...Just playing devil's advocate here.
Regulation is great if it works.

There would be more accidents if people were not trained and educated before they are issued a driver's license. Most communities, if not all, mandate appropriate fencing around home swimming pools.
I can't take gun advocates seriously unless they are willing to look at sensible standards for ownership. I would think they would want standards like the ones I mentioned. What does it say about their gun ownership "philosophy" if they're not in favor of education and training before being able to use a weapon? The military and law enforcement officers are trained...highly trained, and for good reasons. The average citizen wouldn't need that type of specialized training....just common sense basics. Why would serious gun advocacy groups be opposed to this? Makes no sense.

So you would advocate regulating the right of self protection. Would the lawless be also required to go through a testing and fee requirement?
I personally would stress that indiviguals should get proper firearms training. I know that all states (except Vermont) require formal training and permit to carry concealed. 48 states now allow some sort of concealed carry.

[amy]

WASHINGTON--

House leaders have agreed to allow a vote next month on a bill that would end local handgun control in the District of Columbia.

The measure was filed last week by several conservative Democrats, and supporters say it has a good chance of passing the House. Its prospects in the Senate are unclear.

The Supreme Court struck down the city's 32-year-old handgun ban in June. Since then, D.C. lawmakers have passed emergency legislation that maintains strict regulations.

The House bill seeks to eliminate those measures.

The legislation would allow D.C. residents to own handguns without registering them with police if they meet federal requirements for firearms ownership.

The bill also would end a requirement that owners keep their handguns unloaded and disassembled in their homes and would repeal the city's ban on most semiautomatic handguns.

link

Question:
Do guns and their owners have to be registered with the federal govt? I've searched but I can't seem to find that info.
If not, I believe all gun purchases should be registered with the federal govt. and people should be licensed to own a gun of any type.
Gun owners should have to pass a written and practical test before they can be licensed to own a gun.
We all have to pass a written and road test to be licensed to drive a vehicle.
Any logical reason why this is not an intelligent approach to gun ownership?

How will this reduce crime, amy?

I wasn't addressing the reducing crime issue, here. It wouldn't reduce crime. But, it would most likely reduce accidents. It just makes sense that gun owners should have to demonstrate a knowledge of their guns, knowledge of their state's gun laws and a knowledge of how to use them before they can legally operate a weapon of any type. I would be far more likely to support gun ownership if the gun groups would support measures like this. It's not an attempt to 'disarm" citizens or force onerous and unnecessary restrictions on ownership and use.I sure don't want unlicensed, untrained drivers on the road...why would I want untrained, unknowledgeable gun owners anywhere in our society? Doesn't make sense, Frenchy. With freedom comes certain responsibility.
Why not?

Would you like to compare death and injury by automobile vs. guns? How about swimming pools and kids?...Just playing devil's advocate here.
Regulation is great if it works.

There would be more accidents if people were not trained and educated before they are issued a driver's license. Most communities, if not all, mandate appropriate fencing around home swimming pools.
I can't take gun advocates seriously unless they are willing to look at sensible standards for ownership. I would think they would want standards like the ones I mentioned. What does it say about their gun ownership "philosophy" if they're not in favor of education and training before being able to use a weapon? The military and law enforcement officers are trained...highly trained, and for good reasons. The average citizen wouldn't need that type of specialized training....just common sense basics. Why would serious gun advocacy groups be opposed to this? Makes no sense.

So you would advocate regulating the right of self protection. Would the lawless be also required to go through a testing and fee requirement?
I personally would stress that indiviguals should get proper firearms training. I know that all states (except Vermont) require formal training and permit to carry concealed. 48 states now allow some sort of concealed carry.

Not regulating ...Training or proof (tests) that one knows how to handle a weapon .
Do you have info about the formal training required needed for a license to carry concealed? I'v searched and searched for PA and can't find anything that says it's a requirement.
Even if there is a requirement for concealed carry, there is no training requirement for open carry in PA.....which makes no sense...a gun is a gun...concealed, open. Typical non sensical PA laws.....seat belt laws...but no helmet laws for motorcyclists.

[Frenchy]

WASHINGTON--

House leaders have agreed to allow a vote next month on a bill that would end local handgun control in the District of Columbia.

The measure was filed last week by several conservative Democrats, and supporters say it has a good chance of passing the House. Its prospects in the Senate are unclear.

The Supreme Court struck down the city's 32-year-old handgun ban in June. Since then, D.C. lawmakers have passed emergency legislation that maintains strict regulations.

The House bill seeks to eliminate those measures.

The legislation would allow D.C. residents to own handguns without registering them with police if they meet federal requirements for firearms ownership.

The bill also would end a requirement that owners keep their handguns unloaded and disassembled in their homes and would repeal the city's ban on most semiautomatic handguns.

link

Question:
Do guns and their owners have to be registered with the federal govt? I've searched but I can't seem to find that info.
If not, I believe all gun purchases should be registered with the federal govt. and people should be licensed to own a gun of any type.
Gun owners should have to pass a written and practical test before they can be licensed to own a gun.
We all have to pass a written and road test to be licensed to drive a vehicle.
Any logical reason why this is not an intelligent approach to gun ownership?

How will this reduce crime, amy?

I wasn't addressing the reducing crime issue, here. It wouldn't reduce crime. But, it would most likely reduce accidents. It just makes sense that gun owners should have to demonstrate a knowledge of their guns, knowledge of their state's gun laws and a knowledge of how to use them before they can legally operate a weapon of any type. I would be far more likely to support gun ownership if the gun groups would support measures like this. It's not an attempt to 'disarm" citizens or force onerous and unnecessary restrictions on ownership and use.I sure don't want unlicensed, untrained drivers on the road...why would I want untrained, unknowledgeable gun owners anywhere in our society? Doesn't make sense, Frenchy. With freedom comes certain responsibility.
Why not?

Would you like to compare death and injury by automobile vs. guns? How about swimming pools and kids?...Just playing devil's advocate here.
Regulation is great if it works.

There would be more accidents if people were not trained and educated before they are issued a driver's license. Most communities, if not all, mandate appropriate fencing around home swimming pools.
I can't take gun advocates seriously unless they are willing to look at sensible standards for ownership. I would think they would want standards like the ones I mentioned. What does it say about their gun ownership "philosophy" if they're not in favor of education and training before being able to use a weapon? The military and law enforcement officers are trained...highly trained, and for good reasons. The average citizen wouldn't need that type of specialized training....just common sense basics. Why would serious gun advocacy groups be opposed to this? Makes no sense.

So you would advocate regulating the right of self protection. Would the lawless be also required to go through a testing and fee requirement?
I personally would stress that indiviguals should get proper firearms training. I know that all states (except Vermont) require formal training and permit to carry concealed. 48 states now allow some sort of concealed carry.

Not regulating ...Training or proof (tests) that one knows how to handle a weapon .
Do you have info about the formal training required needed for a license to carry concealed? I'v searched and searched for PA and can't find anything that says it's a requirement.
Even if there is a requirement for concealed carry, there is no training requirement for open carry in PA.....which makes no sense...a gun is a gun...concealed, open. Typical non sensical PA laws.....seat belt laws...but no helmet laws for motorcyclists.

I agree, some laws don't make sense. There is no training or permit required in Missouri to carry openly.

Pennsylvania Concealed Carry CCW Laws and Information

Missouri...Firearms training requirements--safety instructor requirements--penalty for violations

This post has been edited by Frenchy: Dec 6 2008, 10:36 AM

[amy]

WASHINGTON--

House leaders have agreed to allow a vote next month on a bill that would end local handgun control in the District of Columbia.

The measure was filed last week by several conservative Democrats, and supporters say it has a good chance of passing the House. Its prospects in the Senate are unclear.

The Supreme Court struck down the city's 32-year-old handgun ban in June. Since then, D.C. lawmakers have passed emergency legislation that maintains strict regulations.

The House bill seeks to eliminate those measures.

The legislation would allow D.C. residents to own handguns without registering them with police if they meet federal requirements for firearms ownership.

The bill also would end a requirement that owners keep their handguns unloaded and disassembled in their homes and would repeal the city's ban on most semiautomatic handguns.

link

Question:
Do guns and their owners have to be registered with the federal govt? I've searched but I can't seem to find that info.
If not, I believe all gun purchases should be registered with the federal govt. and people should be licensed to own a gun of any type.
Gun owners should have to pass a written and practical test before they can be licensed to own a gun.
We all have to pass a written and road test to be licensed to drive a vehicle.
Any logical reason why this is not an intelligent approach to gun ownership?

How will this reduce crime, amy?

I wasn't addressing the reducing crime issue, here. It wouldn't reduce crime. But, it would most likely reduce accidents. It just makes sense that gun owners should have to demonstrate a knowledge of their guns, knowledge of their state's gun laws and a knowledge of how to use them before they can legally operate a weapon of any type. I would be far more likely to support gun ownership if the gun groups would support measures like this. It's not an attempt to 'disarm" citizens or force onerous and unnecessary restrictions on ownership and use.I sure don't want unlicensed, untrained drivers on the road...why would I want untrained, unknowledgeable gun owners anywhere in our society? Doesn't make sense, Frenchy. With freedom comes certain responsibility.
Why not?

Would you like to compare death and injury by automobile vs. guns? How about swimming pools and kids?...Just playing devil's advocate here.
Regulation is great if it works.

There would be more accidents if people were not trained and educated before they are issued a driver's license. Most communities, if not all, mandate appropriate fencing around home swimming pools.
I can't take gun advocates seriously unless they are willing to look at sensible standards for ownership. I would think they would want standards like the ones I mentioned. What does it say about their gun ownership "philosophy" if they're not in favor of education and training before being able to use a weapon? The military and law enforcement officers are trained...highly trained, and for good reasons. The average citizen wouldn't need that type of specialized training....just common sense basics. Why would serious gun advocacy groups be opposed to this? Makes no sense.

So you would advocate regulating the right of self protection. Would the lawless be also required to go through a testing and fee requirement?
I personally would stress that indiviguals should get proper firearms training. I know that all states (except Vermont) require formal training and permit to carry concealed. 48 states now allow some sort of concealed carry.

Not regulating ...Training or proof (tests) that one knows how to handle a weapon .
Do you have info about the formal training required needed for a license to carry concealed? I'v searched and searched for PA and can't find anything that says it's a requirement.
Even if there is a requirement for concealed carry, there is no training requirement for open carry in PA.....which makes no sense...a gun is a gun...concealed, open. Typical non sensical PA laws.....seat belt laws...but no helmet laws for motorcyclists.

I agree, some laws don't make sense. There is no training or permit required in Missouri to carry openly.

Pennsylvania Concealed Carry CCW Laws and Information

Missouri...Firearms training requirements--safety instructor requirements--penalty for violations

Exactly! The laws are all over the place and don't make any sense, in some cases. Common sense dictates that ALL people who are allowed to carry a weapon should have to go through firearms training. Why wouldn't the NRA and other gun groups advocate for this? It would show they're not just interested in the right for citizens to bear arms but for them to bear arms responsibly.
This big cultural divide about gun issues is widened when people take "sides" and refuse to look at and address the "real" issues attached to our right to bear arms.

This post has been edited by amy: Dec 6 2008, 11:02 AM

[Frenchy]

WASHINGTON--

House leaders have agreed to allow a vote next month on a bill that would end local handgun control in the District of Columbia.

The measure was filed last week by several conservative Democrats, and supporters say it has a good chance of passing the House. Its prospects in the Senate are unclear.

The Supreme Court struck down the city's 32-year-old handgun ban in June. Since then, D.C. lawmakers have passed emergency legislation that maintains strict regulations.

The House bill seeks to eliminate those measures.

The legislation would allow D.C. residents to own handguns without registering them with police if they meet federal requirements for firearms ownership.

The bill also would end a requirement that owners keep their handguns unloaded and disassembled in their homes and would repeal the city's ban on most semiautomatic handguns.

link

Question:
Do guns and their owners have to be registered with the federal govt? I've searched but I can't seem to find that info.
If not, I believe all gun purchases should be registered with the federal govt. and people should be licensed to own a gun of any type.
Gun owners should have to pass a written and practical test before they can be licensed to own a gun.
We all have to pass a written and road test to be licensed to drive a vehicle.
Any logical reason why this is not an intelligent approach to gun ownership?

How will this reduce crime, amy?

I wasn't addressing the reducing crime issue, here. It wouldn't reduce crime. But, it would most likely reduce accidents. It just makes sense that gun owners should have to demonstrate a knowledge of their guns, knowledge of their state's gun laws and a knowledge of how to use them before they can legally operate a weapon of any type. I would be far more likely to support gun ownership if the gun groups would support measures like this. It's not an attempt to 'disarm" citizens or force onerous and unnecessary restrictions on ownership and use.I sure don't want unlicensed, untrained drivers on the road...why would I want untrained, unknowledgeable gun owners anywhere in our society? Doesn't make sense, Frenchy. With freedom comes certain responsibility.
Why not?

Would you like to compare death and injury by automobile vs. guns? How about swimming pools and kids?...Just playing devil's advocate here.
Regulation is great if it works.

There would be more accidents if people were not trained and educated before they are issued a driver's license. Most communities, if not all, mandate appropriate fencing around home swimming pools.
I can't take gun advocates seriously unless they are willing to look at sensible standards for ownership. I would think they would want standards like the ones I mentioned. What does it say about their gun ownership "philosophy" if they're not in favor of education and training before being able to use a weapon? The military and law enforcement officers are trained...highly trained, and for good reasons. The average citizen wouldn't need that type of specialized training....just common sense basics. Why would serious gun advocacy groups be opposed to this? Makes no sense.

So you would advocate regulating the right of self protection. Would the lawless be also required to go through a testing and fee requirement?
I personally would stress that indiviguals should get proper firearms training. I know that all states (except Vermont) require formal training and permit to carry concealed. 48 states now allow some sort of concealed carry.

Not regulating ...Training or proof (tests) that one knows how to handle a weapon .
Do you have info about the formal training required needed for a license to carry concealed? I'v searched and searched for PA and can't find anything that says it's a requirement.
Even if there is a requirement for concealed carry, there is no training requirement for open carry in PA.....which makes no sense...a gun is a gun...concealed, open. Typical non sensical PA laws.....seat belt laws...but no helmet laws for motorcyclists.

I agree, some laws don't make sense. There is no training or permit required in Missouri to carry openly.

Pennsylvania Concealed Carry CCW Laws and Information

Missouri...Firearms training requirements--safety instructor requirements--penalty for violations

Exactly! The laws are all over the place and don't make any sense, in some cases. Common sense dictates that ALL people who are allowed to carry a weapon should have to go through firearms training. Why wouldn't the NRA and other gun groups advocate for this? It would show they're not just interested in the right for citizens to bear arms but for them to bear arms responsibly.
This big cultural divide about gun issues is widened when people take "sides" and refuse to look at and address the "real" issues attached to our right to bear arms.

Indeed...
What is The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program?

[Beamer]

Exactly! The laws are all over the place and don't make any sense, in some cases. Common sense dictates that ALL people who are allowed to carry a weapon should have to go through firearms training. Why wouldn't the NRA and other gun groups advocate for this? It would show they're not just interested in the right for citizens to bear arms but for them to bear arms responsibly.
This big cultural divide about gun issues is widened when people take "sides" and refuse to look at and address the "real" issues attached to our right to bear arms.

I think training in the use of firearms is beneficial, but I don't think it should be required by the federal government. I also don't see why people should have to be licensed. Owning a firearm is a Constitutional right.

I own a gun. In California, in order to purchase a gun, you have to obtain a Handgun Safety Certificate. To do this, you must pass a written test and demonstrate to the gun dealer the basic safety procedures in handling a firearm. Then, you have to wait 10 days to actually take ownership of the gun you purchase.

California laws generally are considered onerous by gun rights people. They also restrict the types of firearms you can own here and put limits on the firepower you can have in your gun - no more than 10 cartridges in a handgun, for instance. However, I did not find the laws unduly restrictive in my case. But, I was just buying a .22 caliber that I planned to use for target shooting.

[Frenchy]

Most states also offer Hunter Safety programs that are either voluntary or mandatory.

Training safe, responsible hunters

[amy]

Exactly! The laws are all over the place and don't make any sense, in some cases. Common sense dictates that ALL people who are allowed to carry a weapon should have to go through firearms training. Why wouldn't the NRA and other gun groups advocate for this? It would show they're not just interested in the right for citizens to bear arms but for them to bear arms responsibly.
This big cultural divide about gun issues is widened when people take "sides" and refuse to look at and address the "real" issues attached to our right to bear arms.

I think training in the use of firearms is beneficial, but I don't think it should be required by the federal government. I also don't see why people should have to be licensed. Owning a firearm is a Constitutional right.

I think firearms training should be mandatory in every state. The only reason I would suggest the fed govt. get involved with that issue is to give consistency to a mandate. But, at the very least, I believe the gun advocacy groups should push states to mandate trainingfor all gun owners. PA is my state of residence so it's the only state of real interest to me on gun issues. I will be contacting my state legislators about this issue...asking why no training is mandated and offering my thoughts on why it should be.

[Frenchy]

Exactly! The laws are all over the place and don't make any sense, in some cases. Common sense dictates that ALL people who are allowed to carry a weapon should have to go through firearms training. Why wouldn't the NRA and other gun groups advocate for this? It would show they're not just interested in the right for citizens to bear arms but for them to bear arms responsibly.
This big cultural divide about gun issues is widened when people take "sides" and refuse to look at and address the "real" issues attached to our right to bear arms.

I think training in the use of firearms is beneficial, but I don't think it should be required by the federal government. I also don't see why people should have to be licensed. Owning a firearm is a Constitutional right.

I think firearms training should be mandatory in every state. The only reason I would suggest the fed govt. get involved with that issue is to give consistency to a mandate. But, at the very least, I believe the gun advocacy groups should push states to mandate trainingfor all gun owners. PA is my state of residence so it's the only state of real interest to me on gun issues. I will be contacting my state legislators about this issue...asking why no training is mandated and offering my thoughts on why it should be.

That's a good idea. Being active in your state is what I've always advocated.

http://www.pafoa.org/

[Frenchy]

I think firearms training should be mandatory in every state.

I'm running a poll on this issue on my gun forum, amy...I'll post the results or link to the poll.

Early returns are interesting and encouraging.

Should training be manditory for gun ownership?

This post has been edited by Frenchy: Dec 6 2008, 02:24 PM