Drivers License Modification for Gun Purchase

[Jeff Thomas]

John from AZ posted something about drivers licenses, and reminded me of an idea that I think may have some merit. I offer this with full expectation (and hope) that my TFL friends will beat this idea up one side and down the other.

The anti-self defense crowd is always posturing about how we must keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, nutcases (and on and on). Of course, our brilliant feds fail to enforce the laws we have now. And, we have bozos like Al Gore, Bill Bradley and others calling for ID cards to purchase firearms, registration, and in some cases confiscation.

I think many of us would agree there are certain folks we'd rather not see carrying firearms. Without immediately getting into the argument of who is 'reasonably' prohibited, please consider this:

Every state modifies its drivers license to include a section reading 'Firearms Purchase?' and 'Yes' or 'No' marked next to it.

Everyone with a drivers license would get a new license with this correction. Every court that finds an individual guilty of a felony, etc., and therefore disqualified (under current law) from legal firearms purchases, would need to confiscate their drivers license and cause a corrected one to be issued. Someone without a drivers license could get a separate state card for such purchases, but I would think this would be relatively rare.

I don't really like this per se, but as I consider the idea I find it infinitely more palatable than registering firearms owners or firearms themselves. And, if everyone has such a designation (one way or the other), there is no more NICS, and no more argument about keeping track of every gun owner. Even that witch Sarah Brady would have such a box on her license (assuming the twit can drive).

Yes, this would involve some additional expense. But, 'if it would save one life', and 'let's do it for the children' should overcome those petty expense concerns.

Actually, there probably would still be an argument about registering firearms and owners, but at least it would show the anti-self defense lobby is lying (once again) about their true motives.

Blast away, please.

Regards from AZ.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited July 26, 1999).]

 

[Lucas]

Jeff:

I don't think your idea would eliminate the NICS, but rather just add another layer of crud the firearms owner already has to put up with.

The anti's never give up something they've previously "won". Part of the reason the house bill went down in flames was that as part of the bill firearms would again be "allowed" in Washington D.C.--they realize they don't need to compromise in order to take our rights away piece by piece.

[This message has been edited by Lucas (edited July 26, 1999).]

 

[SameShot]

So then cops would be wary of people at traffic stops that have a "yes I can buy a firearm" or be wary of "no, I'm a criminal and can't buy a firearm"?

No matter how you try, someone will find a way to abuse what seemed like a good idea at the time. Deja Vu

------------------
Same Shot, Different day

 

[Long Path]

Beware of a society that requires you to carry an ID.

This one's not a dumb idea-- we with CHL's in TX have to carry it around all the time, anyway, and it's just like a DL.

 

[John/az2]

Well, as already mentioned, when has congress repealed a law related to guns?

And I still see it as an infringement that would add another sticking point to a national ID.



------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..."

 

[LightningLink]

The problem with the driver's license (DL) replacing NICS is like a DL preventing underage drinking. If all it takes to buy a firearm is a properly "checked" DL, then a simple fake license would be free reign for a felon.

Also, from the pro-gun standpoint it sounds like a compromise. "If we get a number tattooed to our left arm then can we keep our guns?"

Don't get me wrong, what I do like about your idea is that is shows that we gun owners are just as concerned about felons owning guns too. Before I became active on TFL and AR15.com, I used to think that the NRA was too extreme because they felt that every knuckle dragging goon should be able to own a gun. Even though I owned two ARs, I actually felt that they weren't for everyone. What a dolt huh? It was through exposure to "real" gun owners that a learned that responsible gun ownership is a central motto that most of us adhere to.

Keep those gears turning though. None of us wants compromise, but if it has to be, then let it at least be reasonable and fair.

LL

 

[Paul Revere]

About a week ago I was in a local discount liquor store to buy some wine and spirits. I placed the items in the basket and rolled it to the counter. I then handed the guy my credit card, he checked out my purchase, placed them in a box, and said "thanks".

As I stood there watching him check out my purchase, I thought..."Anyone buying this alcohol could easily go home, get drunk, get back in their car and drive into traffic causing death and destruction." At the same time, most purchasers of alcoholic beverages bring them home to enjoy with meals, watching sports, etc., without posing a threat to anyone. With this same thought, I was thinking...purchasing a gun should be this easy too!

Why should I have to wait 5 days for a gun? I may want to use it tomorrow. How can anyone...liquor store clerk or gun store clerk, know if the person they're selling to has any possible criminal intentions. Checking backgrounds doesn't guarantee that someone may not do something in the future. As such, someone with no prior DUI is not cleared of never having the potential to drink and drive. But both are legal products that can be used without harm to others...or be used in a lethal manner.

 

[Grayfox]

I don't know about other states, but in Tennessee your DL can tell a LEO if you have a gun permit. Last time I renewed my license, I noticed on the form that in the "Condition Codes" section was my code for glasses, My code for class A commercial and a code 99 which I didn't know. So I asked the lady behind the counter what it was and she asked "Do you have a gun permit?" I said "Yes?". She- "Well, that's a code 99. Don't worry it's not printed on the license, it only shows up if an officer runs a check on it."

Something to think about.

 

[Jeff Thomas]

Grayfox, you make my point, I believe. The anti-self defense lobby says they simply want to keep firearms out of the hands of BG's. Certainly, they 'don't want to take the guns away' (gag me with a spoon, as they say).

Via concealed carry permits, NICS and other foolishness our society is, little by little, identifying gun owners and the location of firearms. Historically, that is a bad idea, and tends to be associated with 'big problems', to put it mildly.

So, I wonder if it makes any sense to call their bluff? ID everyone with ID they already have. Accomplishes their stated goal, with the proviso we get rid of the other schemes which specifically target firearms owners.

Sure, this is somewhat naive to the extent we assume the anti's can be trusted in this regard. But, how do they respond to this argument without exposing their lies? I recognize exposing their lies does not change things, in and of itself. But, IMHO one reasonable goal in the current debate is to force some truth back into the discussion. Americans may still be able to reconsider some of this foolishness if they hear some counter proposals.

 

[WeedEater]

You people seem intent to go along with the "criminals and felons shouldn't have guns" thing. Well thanks to the drug war there have been tens of millions of "felony drug" convictions; and at present, over 65% of prisoners are non-violent drug offenders. At this rate there will be no one left who is "eligible" to vote or own guns. On another front--anyone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor is also ineligible to own guns. I know of a few instances where someone was wrongfully convicted, probably just to eliminate another legal gun owner.

The drug war has perpetuated countless infringements of our individual liberties and enabled the militarization of domestic police. In over 80% of forfeiture cases, no charges are filed against the owner. We already urinate on demand for the courts and employers. If they can control what we are allowed to put into our own bodies, then they certainly can control anything else we may want.

Freedom must be fought for on ALL fronts. The best thing I know to do at this point is to read my Bible, learn to live off the land, and load my guns for the day that "no man shall buy or sell save he that have the mark of the beast."

 

[Jeff Thomas]

WeedEater, I agree with much of what you say. I was hoping to get some discussion on this concept without addressing the insidious encroachment of the RKBA by expansion of the pool of 'unqualified' firearms owners. Please don't assume that by ignoring that problem for this discussion we automatically accept the status quo - that is not the case, and you'll see this if you do a search for similar discussions in the past.