My thoughts: If somebody only drives around on eir own property, e does not need a driver's license, at least in most states. If somebody's only keeping a gun at home to defend eir home, e should not need a license, either. (I feel much more strongly about that than about driving a car, too, because there's no right to drive a car, but I do think there's a right to protect one's home.)
On the other hand, if someone wants to carry a gun around in public, e should have a license - but it should be shall-issue rather than may-issue. (On the other hand, Vermont doesn't require licenses, and to the best of my knowledge their crime rate is comparable to neighboring states, so I could be convinced that no one should need a license for this either.)
My issue with needing to have competency checked in order simply to own a gun is that I shouldn't need to be comfortable with rifles to own a handgun, or revolvers to own a semi-automatic, but having to get a license for every type of firearm would rapidly become very onerous, especially in states that do their best to make firearm ownership difficult. If I am an adult, am not a felon, have never had a judge declare me a threat to myself or others (i.e. if I voluntarily seek psychiatric treatment that should never be an issue, even if that means a voluntary stay in the loony bin), and I see a firearm of a type I don't own for sale, I should be able to buy it if I can afford it. On the other hand, if I should decide that I want to carry a gun for my protection (either openly or concealed), the government has an interest in making sure I am competent with that gun, which is why I'm okay with needing a carry license.
I also tend to think that the machine gun registry should be reopened, such that the process of purchasing one is generally the same, but new ones can be manufactured, so that it doesn't become an issue of "there are only n machine guns in existence, so any time one is destroyed or damaged the others become accordingly more valuable, such that no one who has one will sell it for anything less than an exorbitant amount". I also think that the restrictions on suppressors are counterproductive, but I think it'd be easier (politically speaking) to reopen the registry than to stop restricting suppressors.
(Bombs are easy to regulate - bombs are "destructive devices", and already restricted in different ways than rifles and handguns. On the other hand I see nothing wrong with somebody owning a tank. Tanks fire destructive devices, so naturally you can't pick up the ammunition for your tank's gun at Wal-Mart, but I don't have any problem with anybody owning the vehicle itself. Ditto somebody owning a fighter or bomber airplane, actually.)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-03-16 02:33 am (UTC)If somebody only drives around on eir own property, e does not need a driver's license, at least in most states. If somebody's only keeping a gun at home to defend eir home, e should not need a license, either. (I feel much more strongly about that than about driving a car, too, because there's no right to drive a car, but I do think there's a right to protect one's home.)
On the other hand, if someone wants to carry a gun around in public, e should have a license - but it should be shall-issue rather than may-issue. (On the other hand, Vermont doesn't require licenses, and to the best of my knowledge their crime rate is comparable to neighboring states, so I could be convinced that no one should need a license for this either.)
My issue with needing to have competency checked in order simply to own a gun is that I shouldn't need to be comfortable with rifles to own a handgun, or revolvers to own a semi-automatic, but having to get a license for every type of firearm would rapidly become very onerous, especially in states that do their best to make firearm ownership difficult. If I am an adult, am not a felon, have never had a judge declare me a threat to myself or others (i.e. if I voluntarily seek psychiatric treatment that should never be an issue, even if that means a voluntary stay in ), and I see a firearm of a type I don't own for sale, I should be able to buy it if I can afford it. On the other hand, if I should decide that I want to carry a gun for my protection (either openly or concealed), the government has an interest in making sure I am competent with that gun, which is why I'm okay with needing a carry license.
I also tend to think that the machine gun registry should be reopened, such that the process of purchasing one is generally the same, but new ones can be manufactured, so that it doesn't become an issue of "there are only n machine guns in existence, so any time one is destroyed or damaged the others become accordingly more valuable, such that no one who has one will sell it for anything less than an exorbitant amount". I also think that the restrictions on suppressors are counterproductive, but I think it'd be easier (politically speaking) to reopen the registry than to stop restricting suppressors.
(Bombs are easy to regulate - bombs are "destructive devices", and already restricted in different ways than rifles and handguns. On the other hand I see nothing wrong with somebody owning a tank. Tanks fire destructive devices, so naturally you can't pick up the ammunition for your tank's gun at Wal-Mart, but I don't have any problem with anybody owning the vehicle itself. Ditto somebody owning a fighter or bomber airplane, actually.)