A solution to Second Amendment concerns: Shall-issue gun licensing.

[meldroc]

I'm stealing the phrase "shall issue" from concealed-carry licensing laws that have passed in the past decades. Concealed-carry licensing laws in many places have variations of the clause "The sheriff/state/authority may issue a concealed carry permit to an individual that fulfills such-and-such qualifications." What this means is that the authority, can, but doesn't have to issue the permit to a qualified individual who asks for one. The result in places with "may-issue" concealed carry laws is that the authority usually chooses not to issue permits.

The recent "shall-issue" concealed-carry changed that clause above to "The issuing authority shall issue a concealed-carry permit to individuals that fulfill such-and-such qualifications." What this means is that if a person wants a concealed carry permit, fulfills all the qualifications such as training, clean background checks, payment of fees, etc. that the authority is required to issue the permit. As a result, many states now have several thousand individuals licensed to carry concealed firearms. In general, they have a very clean record - very few of these individuals have committed crimes with their firearms despite the fact they carry them all the time. (though Florida is starting to get sloppy with their checks - some people are getting permits that shouldn't but overall, the record of shall-issue concealed-carry laws is quite good.)

You're probably wondering what my point is. Why am I suggesting this as a solution to Second Amendment concerns over gun registration and licensing? Let me explain.

This means that if laws are written correctly and sanely, that means that government CAN license firearms. They CAN require firearms registration. They can impose restrictions on firearms. There is a catch, but that catch is something I, as a pro-Second-Amendment person, can live with.

They have to have "Shall-issue" clauses.

So how does this sound? Some laws on the books to license the ownership of firearms. But they have to have a "shall-issue" clause. Something like "The issuing authority shall issue a firearms permit to an individual upon request, provided that the individual fulfills such-and-such requirements." In short, that means it is constitutional, and does not violate the Second Amendment, even the "the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." part to require that individuals who want to own or possess firearms get a permit first, and that they do things like take gun-safety classes, pass a background check. The one catch is that the issuing authority can't deny permits for no reason. They HAVE to make it reasonably possible to get a firearms permit, they must not put too much of a burden upon individuals who want permits, and they can't just decide they don't want to give out permits. They have to issue permits to qualified individuals. That's the point of the "shall issue" clause. Abusing the system to prevent qualified, law-abiding citizens from being able to get guns is not allowed, but the system can be put in place to regulate guns so we don't see so many shootings.

Thoughts? I think we have the way to a reasonable compromise here. Something that brings us closer to "Good guys get guns, but bad guys don't."

[slackmaster]

1. Strong libertarian (small l) RKBA supporter - you haven't lost me yet

As long as you don't introduce any non-objective criteria or require payment of an unreasonable fee to exercise the right to own a firearm, I can't reject your idea out of hand.

[meldroc]

4. Definitely have to make sure the requirements are reasonable, achievable by ordinary people.

For example, passing a background check verifying that you don't have felonies, violent crimes, etc., no medical conditions that would make it impossible for you to keep or use a firearm safely, maybe paying a small fee. There must be great care to avoid the introduction of stealth Jim Crow laws that have the effect of making it easy for most white, middle class people to get a permit, but throw huge obstacles in the way of poor minorities, not just for Second Amendment grounds, but Fourteenth Amendment grounds.

[northzax]

2. i think the counter arguement would be

that any restrictions on licensing are inherently restrictive of second amendment rights. Training, for instance, no other right in the Constitution would then have a de facto cost associated with exercising that right. Even licensing has problems like this (you don't need a $25 license to exercise your first amendment rights, or any other right, like voting) you will be creating a (although very low) means test for enshrined rights. this is troublesome.

[meldroc]

3. Perhaps provide free training? or subsidized training?

It may have to be that the taxpayer front some or all of the cost for this. It would definitely be unconstitutional to prevent someone from getting a gun license just because he's poor, so the solution might be to make the permit free, and provide free training.

At the minimum, it may be argued that a $25 class is reasonable - the cost is enough to cover expenses, but isn't insane; but that the same class priced at $500 discriminates against poor and minorities that are frequently poor.

There's also Fourteeen Amendment concerns - it's absolutely illegal to deny a person a gun permit because he's black, for example.

There's also language issues - it would be unconstitutional to provide training classes in English only, and turn away Spanish speakers.

[northzax]

5. it would have to be free

otherwise it is the equivalent of a poll tax (a cost to exercise a constitutional right, certainly forbidden)

I also think that this makes different jurisdictions unable to regulate what is appropriate and acceptable for them, an unrealistic proposition.

[meldroc]

6. Training doesn't have to be elaborate...

I took the NRA Basic Pistol class to get a concealed carry permit, and it's really not that hard.

Start with basic gun safety - Cooper's Four Rules (1. All guns are always loaded. 2. Never allow the muzzle of the gun to point at anything you don't wish to destroy. 3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target. 4. Positively identify your target, and everything behind it.)

Then just a simple run-through of the mechanics of common guns (know how to shoot & reload a revolver or a semi-auto), isosceles stance, simple target training, and before long you've got some decent groups.

It's not difficult. Fundamentally, anyone and everyone who has contact with firearms should know this.

[meldroc]

7. Another benefit of "shall-issue" regulation: full-auto can come back!

OK, I'm going to get flamed hard for this. /me dons his asbestos undies.

One of the benefits of going to a "shall-issue" foundation for gun regulation is people who are law-abiding and have the means to do so SAFELY shall be allowed to have fully-automatic firearms. Same goes for silencers (which are used all the time for hunting in Europe - keeps them from disturbing wildlife excessively in the woods - they don't see why we ban them.) Nukes, WMDs, howitzers, depleted uranium rounds and such can still be banned because a compelling argument can be made that individuals don't have the means to possess them and use them safely.

That does mean the argument "Why does anybody need a machine gun?" Can't ask that question. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, and doesn't have a clause saying that you have to explain why. You have the permit? Taken the safety classes, have a good firing range to go to so you can shoot safely? Then have fun. Got your permit revoked for doing something stupid? Have a long list of violent felonies? No full-auto (or any other weapons) for you!

Besides, from what I hear, rock-and-roll full-auto is A BLAST!!!

[meldroc]

8. Another brainfart - use a Compelling State Interest benchmark.

After years of wrangling in courts about the First Amendment, and what the government can and can't do in restricting speech, the Compelling State Interest test evolved. For example, the government has argued successfully for enforcing a ban on saying George Carlin's seven dirty words on the air because they had a compelling state interest in keeping public airwaves clean.

That's a perfectly valid framework for Second Amendment issues.

For example, there's a compelling state interest in prohibiting individuals from possessing or using nuclear weapons, even though the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. It can be argued that law-abiding individuals can certainly safely use small arms such as rifles and shotguns (and I would argue that even fully automatic weapons can be used safely by law-abiding citizens,) but nuclear devices can't be used safely by individuals (heck, governments can't safely use them either.)

The government can say there's a compelling state interest in requiring permits for individuals to possess firearms, in order to prevent criminals from having them.