Straight Shooter wants national ID ? - BostonHerald

[Ricky]

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/letters/view.bg?articleid=1201586

Straight shooter
Friday, October 2, 2009

I believe the Second Amendment is an individual right (“Supreme Court to look at local gun control laws,” Sept. 30). I also believe that it can, and should, be regulated only in such a way as to require completion of a certified safety course, a background check to ensure violent felons and those with mental disabilities are not allowed to possess a firearm. Although I am opposed to the idea of a national ID, it seems that in order to ensure the above and protect the right of the individual, we need an ID that is valid nationwide with one set of standards.

- Kenneth Reed, Quincy

 

[Blitz1]

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/letters/view.bg?articleid=1201586

Straight shooter
Friday, October 2, 2009

I believe the Second Amendment is an individual right (“Supreme Court to look at local gun control laws,” Sept. 30). I also believe that it can, and should, be regulated only in such a way as to require completion of a certified safety course, a background check to ensure violent felons and those with mental disabilities are not allowed to possess a firearm. Although I am opposed to the idea of a national ID, it seems that in order to ensure the above and protect the right of the individual, we need an ID that is valid nationwide with one set of standards.

- Kenneth Reed, Quincy

Yeah that will certainly keep firearms out of felons hands.

 

[JRyan]

I believe citizens are not subjects and should not be treated like criminals in waiting.

 

[RFWAVELENGTH]

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/letters/view.bg?articleid=1201586

Straight shooter
Friday, October 2, 2009

I believe the Second Amendment is an individual right (“Supreme Court to look at local gun control laws,” Sept. 30). I also believe that it can, and should, be regulated only in such a way as to require completion of a certified safety course, a background check to ensure violent felons and those with mental disabilities are not allowed to possess a firearm. Although I am opposed to the idea of a national ID, it seems that in order to ensure the above and protect the right of the individual, we need an ID that is valid nationwide with one set of standards.

- Kenneth Reed, Quincy

I would wholeheartedly support an "ID", which I assume that you mean similar to a MA FID, that would allow the holder to possess firearms in any state or U.S. territory. It would be recognized by all states, in the same way that drivers' licenses are. If such a scenario ever comes to pass, it would immediately render obsolete FOPA 86 and it would also avoid a lot of needless arrests. I would expect a lot of opposition to such legislation from states with strict gun laws, such as MA, NY, NJ, IL, HI, and CA.

 

[seanc]

What a friggin joke..
All he needs to add is "I am a gun owner", "I own a rifle and I hunt"..

My Name is Elmer J. Fudd, Millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. I own a shotgun and I hunt..

I would wholeheartedly support an "ID", which I assume that you mean similar to a MA FID, that would allow the holder to possess firearms in any state or U.S. territory. It would be recognized by all states, in the same way that drivers' licenses are. If such a scenario ever comes to pass, it would immediately render obsolete FOPA 86 and it would also avoid a lot of needless arrests. I would expect a lot of opposition to such legislation from states with strict gun laws, such as MA, NY, NJ, IL, HI, and CA.

As long as it would be required to be showed each time somebody goes to vote as well..

 

[Jose]

Why do some tools keep trying to push your f-ed up laws on the rest of us?

Wanna legally buy and own a gun in Ohio? Go to a gun store, plunk down the cash, fill out 4473, walk out when the NICS guys says "approved".

Wanna do it legally without dealing with the feds? Find someone selling his or her gun, hand over the money, take your new gun home.

YES, it is that simple.

Keep your FID/LTC/red town/green town bullshit where it belongs: NOT HERE.

 

[william_munny]

Why do some tools keep trying to push your f-ed up laws on the rest of us?

Wanna legally buy and own a gun in Ohio? Go to a gun store, plunk down the cash, fill out 4473, walk out when the NICS guys says "approved".

Wanna do it legally without dealing with the feds? Find someone selling his or her gun, hand over the money, take your new gun home.

YES, it is that simple.

Keep your FID/LTC/red town/green town bullshit where it belongs: NOT HERE.

This.

As a MA resident, I would not want to impose our messed up gun laws on any of the free states. I'm looking to get out of here so I can finally enjoy living in a free state, and I would be very disappointed if someone went and screwed it all up for me (and everyone else already there).

 

[Jose]

William, I guess some people would rather spread shit than clean it up......

 

[TomH]

I would wholeheartedly support an "ID", which I assume that you mean similar to a MA FID, that would allow the holder to possess firearms in any state or U.S. territory. It would be recognized by all states, in the same way that drivers' licenses are. If such a scenario ever comes to pass, it would immediately render obsolete FOPA 86 and it would also avoid a lot of needless arrests. I would expect a lot of opposition to such legislation from states with strict gun laws, such as MA, NY, NJ, IL, HI, and CA.

I support no need for an "ID" to exercise my rights in any state in the US.

 

[Jose]

I would wholeheartedly support an "ID", which I assume that you mean similar to a MA FID, that would allow the holder to possess firearms in any state or U.S. territory. It would be recognized by all states, in the same way that drivers' licenses are. If such a scenario ever comes to pass, it would immediately render obsolete FOPA 86 and it would also avoid a lot of needless arrests. I would expect a lot of opposition to such legislation from states with strict gun laws, such as MA, NY, NJ, IL, HI, and CA.

You'll also find quite a bit of opposition from states with sane gun laws like mine, where no f-ing licenses exist for buying and possessing firearms, the state has no idea how many or what kind of firearms you own, and our police have zero discretion regarding the issuing of concealed handgun licenses.

 

[theGringo]

You'll also find quite a bit of opposition from states with sane gun laws like mine, where no f-ing licenses exist for buying and possessing firearms, the state has no idea how many or what kind of firearms you own, and our police have zero discretion regarding the issuing of concealed handgun licenses.

After living you're whole life in a cage, being fed once a day starts to make sense. So it is with those who live in enslaved states. Eventually, their enslaved condition seems normal ... even beneficial.

 

[cekim]

Eventually, their enslaved condition seems normal ... even beneficial.

Indeed, we hear this "safety" argument from the sheeple on this board all the time...

Like so many "good ideas", the critical distinction is the involvement of government...

Is training good? Yes, absolutely, it should be encouraged by every gun owner, parents, teachers, etc...

Should training be required by law? Absolutely not. This introduces an opportunity for abuse of power that like all others, will become irresistible...

Whatever group is "out of favor" and the general target of discrimination will find itself mysteriously unable to satisfy the training requirements...

 

[drgrant]

I would wholeheartedly support an "ID", which I assume that you mean similar to a MA FID, that would allow the holder to possess firearms in any state or U.S. territory. It would be recognized by all states, in the same way that drivers' licenses are. If such a scenario ever comes to pass, it would immediately render obsolete FOPA 86 and it would also avoid a lot of needless arrests. I would expect a lot of opposition to such legislation from states with strict gun laws, such as MA, NY, NJ, IL, HI, and CA.

It also becomes a ready made database to confiscate firearms with.

No thanks.

Most states are "mere possesion free by default" anyways. (excluding concealed carry). MA is one of the few exceptions to the rule.

-Mike

 

[Half Cocked]

William, I guess some people would rather spread shit than clean it up......

How true!!

 

[drgrant]

You'll also find quite a bit of opposition from states with sane gun laws like mine, where no f-ing licenses exist for buying and possessing firearms, the state has no idea how many or what kind of firearms you own, and our police have zero discretion regarding the issuing of concealed handgun licenses.

+a billion.

The less "licenses" there are regulating a right the better. We don't need a license to exercise any of our other rights, owning (or even carrying) a firearm shouldn't be any different.

-Mike

 

[Blitz1]

I like my LTC because it's another way to identify myself.

 

[jhblaze1]

Keep your FID/LTC/red town/green town bullshit where it belongs: NOT HERE.

Those things don't belong anywhere in America. Not in MA or any other state. Everything about MA guns laws flies in face of everything this country was founded on. These laws belong in China, North Korea, 1930's Germany, not MA or anywhere else in America!

So don't insinuate that they belong in MA. Not everyone from MA is a rabid liberal frothing at the mouth reveling in liberal bliss. There's a lot of us freedom loving red blooded real Americans here! We're just silenced by the liberal soccer mom majority.

It's sure as heck not OUR "FID/LTC/red town/green town bullshit".

 

[soloman02]

It also becomes a ready made database to confiscate firearms with.
-Mike

This is EXACTLY how firearms were confiscated in England. They had a national ID system where you were forced to register your guns. Then one day they finally took them away since they knew exactly how many guns you had.

 

[WILDCATT]

license

the original permit in both NY and Mass was to prevent the opposition party to have guns to protect themselves from thugs at the polls.in the south it was to prevent blacks from protecting themselves from white thugs.
as has been posted national license would lead to confiscation.
the original Mass licence was a piece of paper like the fid card was.no picture and no prints.and you could not buy a gun with it.you had to get a permit to buy which was good for 10 days and there was a 3 day waiting period.all us kids had pistols illigally as we were to young to buy.no body cared.the permit now was put in place in 1955?
how do I know? I had a permit in 1944.

 

[william_munny]

I just wanted to add that I'm all in favor of criminal background checks, but I draw the line there. The process should be:

"You want to buy this gun? Ok, let me make sure you're not a convicted felon. Ok, you check out. Here's your gun." In a free country, that would be it!

I know that the idea of having a federal ID sounds great to us Ma**h***s because it would be good nation-wide, and it doesn't sound much different than the needless hoops we already have to jump through here, but our rights should extend nation-wide anyways. None of this state-level BS. The fact that you're a law-abiding American citizen SHOULD BE your federal license.

 

[cekim]

I just wanted to add that I'm all in favor of criminal background checks, but I draw the line there. The process should be:

"You want to buy this gun? Ok, let me make sure you're not a convicted felon. Ok, you check out. Here's your gun." In a free country, that would be it!

Well, in a truly free country, its not so easy as denying all felons the right to keep and bear arms (but that's a different debate), but the other important feature of background checks is that they MUST be blind...

That is, they must only check that you are NOT on the list of prohibited people and keep no record of the transaction...

 

[william_munny]

Well, in a truly free country, its not so easy as denying all felons the right to keep and bear arms (but that's a different debate), but the other important feature of background checks is that they MUST be blind...

That is, they must only check that you are NOT on the list of prohibited people and keep no record of the transaction...

I whole-heartedly agree. I actually had a line like that in my original statement, but I decided to omit it because it's a whole different can of worms. Debating what crimes should exclude a person would be biting off a little more than I can chew right now. But most importantly, I definitely feel that background checks should not equal a sale in the feds eyes, and there should be no government record that a sale was made or what was purchased.

 

[jdubois]

I don't know why you guys are getting all worked up about this. I think a national gun ID is a great idea. As long as they color code it to compliment my license to travel interstate.

 

[TomH]

I just wanted to add that I'm all in favor of criminal background checks, but I draw the line there. The process should be:

"You want to buy this gun? Ok, let me make sure you're not a convicted felon. Ok, you check out. Here's your gun." In a free country, that would be it!

I don't understand this mentality. This convicted felon can still buy a gun, probably more easily and cheaply than you or I can also out of someone's trunk. What makes you so special that you still have the right to protect yourself and they don't?

 

[cekim]

As long as they color code it to compliment my license to travel interstate.

And ethnicity... Oh and sexual preference...

 

[Bill Nance]

What people who propose these "sensible gun laws" miss is that a fundamental human right should not require licensing.

As I've said to many people otherwise not opposed to guns but wanting "sensible laws":

I'll be happy to get my gun license as soon as you volunteer for your voting license and your free speech license.

Once you can convince people to grasp self defense and the means to it is a fundamental human right they generally see the problems inherent in licensing it.

In my experience even someone generally anti in their sentiments can be brought around, you just need to speak to them in terms that apply to them.

 

[Bill Nance]

This is EXACTLY how firearms were confiscated in England. They had a national ID system where you were forced to register your guns. Then one day they finally took them away since they knew exactly how many guns you had.

Wrong answer.

They were confiscated in England because the rights of British citizens are at the mercy of a parliamentary majority. There isn't anything like the kinds of constitutional protections we have here. (It's one of the reasons we have a 2nd amendment, because the king revoked the right to keep and bear arms in the 17th? century not sure about the exact date but I think that's right).

In the UK your rights are a matter of tradition and consensus. It's rare as Hell for a court to come out and tell parliament "no."

 

[soloman02]

This is EXACTLY how firearms were confiscated in England. They had a national ID system where you were forced to register your guns. Then one day they finally took them away since they knew exactly how many guns you had.

Wrong answer.

They were confiscated in England because the rights of British citizens are at the mercy of a parliamentary majority. There isn't anything like the kinds of constitutional protections we have here. (It's one of the reasons we have a 2nd amendment, because the king revoked the right to keep and bear arms in the 17th? century not sure about the exact date but I think that's right).

In the UK your rights are a matter of tradition and consensus. It's rare as Hell for a court to come out and tell parliament "no."

Well, I thought that was what happened. I stand corrected.

 

[terraformer]

Well, I thought that was what happened. I stand corrected.

You were partly correct. Registration made it much easier to follow through with it. Whereas in canada, they didn't have registration (long guns, some provinces had handgun reg) prior to very recently and few are going out of their way to register pre-existing firearms for this very reason.

 

[william_munny]

I don't understand this mentality. This convicted felon can still buy a gun, probably more easily and cheaply than you or I can also out of someone's trunk. What makes you so special that you still have the right to protect yourself and they don't?

This falls under the whole "we need to figure out what felony crimes would make you a prohibited person" category that I didn't want to get into. It's pretty subjective. For instance, I wouldn't want paroled rapists, murderers, or armed robbers to be able to buy guns. But like you said, bad guys will get guns regardless. That doesn't mean we should permit it legally, however... at least not in cases such as those. And to answer your question, what would make me special is that I've never raped, killed, or mugged anybody. If those people are lucky enough to make it out of prison alive, then I don't see a problem with them sitting nigh defenseless, hoping that karma never comes around to pay them back.