Previous Post
Next Post

I have often heard the antis bleating that “we register cars, why not guns”, and it might surprise people to know that I’m perfectly willing to go the “license and register guns just like cars” route.

Under this plan, gun safety and handling courses will be available to all students 15 and over in the public schools, and kids will be encouraged to take Carriers’ Ed. Also, when they turn 15 they will be eligible for their learner’s carry permit which will allow them to carry concealed as long as they are under the supervision of a licensed adult.

Parents will be especially happy because when their kids take the class, mom and dad will get a break on their homeowner’s insurance premiums. A natural spin-off of this new system: schools and employers will routinely provide convenient, safe gun storage for students and employees just as they do now with parking lots.

Naturally, when someone turns 16 they will go right down to the State Department of Guns and Ammo to get their license to carry. They’ll take the written and practical tests and, whether they took Carriers’ Ed or not, if they pass the tests they’ll get their license on the spot.

Needless to say, about 90% of teens will get their license the first or second time they test. The proud new carriers can then go out and buy their first carry gun. Heck, if Mom and Dad can afford it, some kids will get their first weapon as a 16th birthday present.

Of course this also means that a permit to carry will be valid in every state and mala prohibita restrictions on possession and carrying (ammo restrictions, magazine capacity limits, Evil Black Rifle bans, etc.) must be clearly posted throughout the jurisdiction just as speed limit and stop signs are now.

In the event that you do wind up with a violation it can almost always be dealt with by paying a relatively small fine (either by mail or in person) and will not involve losing the weapon. Likewise a cop can’t just arbitrarily stop you and ask to see your license, absent an underlying visible violation.

The new registration scheme will be a boon to entrepreneurs who will be able to invent, manufacture and sell any sort of gun or accessory they think customers will buy. There will be no local, state or federal agency that can come in and arbitrarily shut a dealer down because when filling out a form a customer put ‘Y’ instead of ‘Yes’. In fact, there won’t be any legal requirement to maintain any sort of form at all.

With the “register them like cars” plan anyone can walk into a gun dealer, plunk down cash and walk out with any gun they want, no questions asked (besides name and address for the registration). Registration fees will be minimal (no more than 1% of the weapon’s value) and will be used to build, maintain and upgrade public shooting ranges that are widely available and free to use.

Of course if you are only going to be using the weapon on private property you don’t need to register them at all and they don’t need to be “street legal”, meaning silencers, machine guns, mortars, bazookas, RPGs, MANPADS etc. are A-OK.

Sure, I’m willing to go that route. Is The Brady Campaign?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I definitely approve. Plus this means there would be a good infrastructure on ammunition and supplies, a la gas stations. You might also be able to lease the really expensive guns but be restricted to 1000 rounds/year. You could also rent an exotic gun for the weekend and put unlimited rounds through it as long as you don’t leave the state, but don’t forget to return it with a full magazine!

    • Or folks could set up gun sharing co-ops (ala “ZipCar”) so one could have convenient access to a firearm without the hassle of having to clean or store it.

  2. I dunno. It’d be great for building a respectable nationwide militia, but I can still see the following scenario happening:

    (Officer and citizen on the side of the road.)
    Officer: Sir, do you know why I pulled you over?
    Citizen (with rifle hanging in window): No, why?
    *Officer pulls out his baton, reaches in, and smashes the optics*
    Officer: Your red dot’s busted.

  3. First I am hoping you are being sarcastic?

    Second, I am not even confident that a nationwide reciprocation law is safe for gun owners. The laws for registration of cars are not compatible with guns. The automobile is registered for verification of compliance with laws dealing with more that classes on how to handle and drive.

    History shows that registration usually leads to confiscation, not the utopian ideals you’ve outlined.

  4. If they would actually do this (which we know the government would never allow – it would put citizens on equal footing with the goose-stepping thugs – er – the military), I’d 100% support it.

    • Guess what, so would the majority of us in the military. Our oath is to the Constitution which includes the 2A’s individual right to bear arms. Don’t confuse us with politicians.

      • Except that you’re the only reason why politicians can take away our rights – because you and the police use your weapons to force people to obey. That puts you on the opposite side of the US people when you start enforcing unjust laws.

        If the military actually gave a rats ass about the Constitution or the well being of the citizens of the US, they’d simply either A) make demands that a particular list of unjust / unconstitutional laws be struck down and go on strike until it was so or B) take those wonderful taxpayer provided weapons and turn them on the government and force said laws to be struck down. Instead, you obediently point your guns at the very people you claim to want to protect – and as we learned all too well in Nuremberg, “I was just following orders” isn’t an excuse. Every time you enforce something unjust, it’s because you chose to do so.

        • I believe that the military, by and large, would not take action against the US population–especially in some sort of disarming action. I think the brass would have a hell of a situation on their hand if they attempted to order soldiers to do so. The soldiers would be breaking their vows, which most take very seriously, following that order.

        • Then you have far, fore more faith than I do in people who’s job is to blindly take orders 24/7 to miraculously stop taking orders and think for themselves.

          Think about it – how many countries have we unjustly invaded and raped and murdered their citizens – and other than the draft in Vietnam, we virtually never hear a peep from the military about it (and once again, they could have simply told the government “no”).

        • You have a terribly simplistic view of the American military. It is no one’s job to blindly take orders, and our military forces are often recognized for their unusual initiative and individual decision making skills. Indeed, it’s often an expectation. Despite the politicization of conflict there’s not a lot of rape and murder in our military actions (I’m not saying there’s none, it would be silly to expect such a thing), they’re generally conducted according to the laws of war.

          More importantly you stick with this idea that the military at some level, presumably high enough in the command to matter, should just say no whenever they might disagree. This flies in the face of how our military is structured and its relationship to the civilian command structure. I, for one, am of the considered opinion that military leaders deciding for themselves when to listen to the civilian leadership is generally a bad thing. It should take a true constitutional crisis to bring on this sort of behavior. And when the majority of the nation is divided on the political questions in these wars how are military leaders supposed to decide?

          Before anyone jumps on this to explain how the military will blindly follow orders to round up and slaughter the American citizens in the government’s pogrom, we’re talking about the difference between foreign action and domestic action. Large scale domestic action against the citizenry would bring on the very sort of constitutional crisis I mentioned above. Would the military dissolve in collective refusal to follow the government’s orders? Not likely. However, massive disruption can be expected as people follow their conscience and refuse orders they believe violate fundamental principles.

          The military is not a monolithic entity that can be expected to behave at the government’s whim like a thoughtless tool. However, it is generally a professional organization which operates under principles and traditions of subordination to civilian leadership which mitigate against refusal to follow orders because some folks don’t think an action is justified. In projecting how those in uniform will act, it is necessary to consider these elements. Else you sound a little shrill.


        • It’s every soldiers job to do what they’re told. That’s how EVERY military works. You do what you’re told or you get executed / imprisoned. Really? Little murder? What else do you call it when we invade a country because we don’t like their religion or local customs and start killing people? That’s not war – that’s murder, plain and simple.

          So you think that just because some politician who won a bogus election say so, that they should just kill anyone they’re told and never make a peep? You don’t consider the massive number of unconstitutional laws we’ve had passed over the last few decades, not to mention absurd crap like labeling anyone who actually owns a copy of the Constitution as a “potential terrorist” to be a Constitutional crisis? We have a government that has completely disregarded the limitations on their power and keep taking more and more power and citizens can’t do shit about it because of the military threat should they try to do anything.

          That’s cute that you think that people who murder without asking questions in exchange for money have a conscience. If a someone does that on behalf of an individual, they’re called a “sociopath” and an assassin / hit man. If someone does it on behalf of the government, you want to claim that they’re “heroic”. I’d argue that the mercenaries are much more honorable because they allow themselves the option of saying no to a job they dislike. Soldiers just go ahead and do it and then hide behind the “I was just following orders” excuse.

          Yes, that is exactly the military’s job – to do what the government tells them to. Do you not understand how the military (regardless of country) works? As for principles? Claiming that you believe in honor while repeatedly engaging in dishonorable behavior and claiming that you were being honorable because “you followed orders” is an utter sham.

        • Dude, you’re wearing me out with your simplistic evaluation of the military chain of command, particularly as it applies to the US military. There are mechanisms in place that deal with unlawful orders, and they are utilized up and down the chain of command. What it’s called when a military invades a country under orders and conducts military operations is combat. With legal declaration it’s called war. Murder is the unlawful taking of human life, since combat and war have legal standing under international law it’s not murder. Your insistence on labeling it murder and reducing the reasons for conflict to simplistic one dimensional elements of bigotry does your argument no favors. There are significant and rational reasons to question American military actions over time, and the politics and motivations behind them. Yours is not compelling.

          I do not believe it is generally, or even popularly held that any politician of prominence has won a bogus election. I do think many of the laws that have been passed do not meet constitutional muster, and I have a great concern for the inflammatory rhetoric used by the political class. In fact, I find much of it abhorrent. But constitutional crisis requiring the military to throw off the constraint of subordination to civilian authority? No. Primarily because I have some notion of what a military coup means outside of cute talking points made by people who would never have to face that decision. I don’t believe the failure of citizens to react to government overreach has much to do with fear of the military. If we were discussing fear of law enforcement, I’d have a different take.

          Again with this. Now it’s murder without question for money. Simplistic and inflammatory rhetoric that does not come close to reality and alienates a large portion of your audience. As I said, not compelling. And I’ve said nothing about conscience or honor or heroism. That would be reflective of your projecting arguments on the opposition and not any response to or refutation of anything I’ve said.

          I do have some understanding of how the military works, yes. In this country and others. And it goes beyond your simple view of automatons following the every whim of their government masters, beyond the characterization of a homogenous, monolithic entity used to bludgeon government opposition indiscriminately.

          By the way, this little “just following orders” meme you’re so focused on…it’s generally considered bad form and a lousy excuse in the American military. Servicepeople are expected to behave in a lawful, principled, and yes, honorable fashion. This includes the principled stance against unlawful orders. Is this an absolute bulwark against bad orders and bad outcomes? Again, no. It’s a human institution, there is no perfection. But neither is there a tendency to conscienceless killing. Your insistence on painting people you do not and cannot know with the rhetoric lessens you and your argument.


        • Oh yes, “mechanisms” where the corrupt government will somehow stop themselves from being corrupt. *rolls eyes* Yes, it’s murder when you kill someone without justification. You can try to BS all you want and call it “combat”, but when we’ve repeatedly invaded countries that posed no threat to us and start killing their citizens until they do as our corrupt government says, that is murder and any soldier who took part in it is a muderer (or if they didn’t fire any shots directly, an accessory to murder). Very few of the wars that the US has been in during the last 100 years have had any justification other than to try to force another country to live the way that US politicians THINK that they should. How would you feel if China decided to “liberate” the US from our “evil” society? I guarantee that you’d be calling them murderers and tyrants – yet you think it’s OK for the US to do the same thing because you delude yourself into thinking that the US government and military are somehow “holy” and “just”.

          The fact that only a fraction of the voting age population votes and only 5.01% of those people need to vote for a politician makes the entire system bogus. You cannot claim that 4.5% or so of the population has the right to determine the fate of everyone else. So you find many of their laws to be “abhorrent”, yet you gladly and willfully bow before them and say “What is thy bidding, my master?” The citizens can’t DO anything to counter the government taking away their rights because the military backs the government and will kill / arrest (probably kill though) anyone who tries to organize people to stand up to the government and make a change. Hell, citizens have a hard time even being able to TALK to any politicians thanks to the military who’ll shoot you for so much as walking down the street when one of our “holy” politicians decides to take a stroll. Military is on the same side as law enforcement – you both enforce the governments desires, so there’s no practical difference.

          Have you ever told your CO that you wouldn’t shoot someone he ordered you to? If not, was the person you killed one of the people directly involved in a terrorist attack on US soil? If the answer to both of those questions is “no”, then you committed murder – without question – for money (because you ARE being paid to do this – the wonderful irony of military / law enforcement – us peasants are forced to provide funding for our oppressors). You’re the one who keeps BS-ing about how the military “has principles”, yet you want to backtrack and say that you said no such thing because I pointed out their utter LACK of principles.

          Really? You don’t claim that all of the crimes you’ve committed have been because you were ordered to? (I know, you’ll lie and say that they weren’t crimes because you were ordered to by the military / government, but then you’ll go back and say that you don’t hide behind the “just following orders” excuse). Ah yes, the regular claim that the military doesn’t follow unjust orders, they just happen to follow them “from time to time” (which translates into “always”). Really? What about the people you’ve murdered who you didn’t know? But again, you’ll claim THAT was OK because you were ordered to do it. Even if someone joins the military because they naively think that they’re doing good, they’ll still end up following the same unjust commands and killing people for no reason just because they were told to – which makes them just as bad as the people who sign up for the military because they want to kill people.

          I judge people based on their character and actions. The fact that the military has yet to do anything but obediently serve the government and uphold unjust and unconstitutional laws says everything about the character. And that’s the real crux of the issue – that the military will always view themselves as “holy” and “just”, no matter how many crimes they commit because they continually tell their fellow soldiers how fantastic they are. Just like with the police, the military isn’t looked upon nearly as favorable by the peasants you rule over as you are by yourselves.

        • 1).You forget that we also pay taxes.
          2) A coup? Seriously?
          3). Let me know exactly where we’re rolling through neigborhoods here in the States running hard-knocks and blasting US citizens. If you have issues with civilian police forces using military tactics and weapons on citizens, then I am right there with you. Police departments have adapted an “us vs them” menatality that belongs on a battlefield, not the streets of Scranton.

        • 1) You don’t pay taxes actually. Your money is paid to you from taxes paid by us (you know, the people you help them oppress). Taxes are just a money shifting scheme where tax dollars are given to you and then taken back from your paycheck before you ever get them.

          2) Why is that so hard to believe? Because it would mean dropping the “Seig Heil!” daily routine and making your own decisions? How many countries have we encouraged (and aided) open armed revolt against the government? But if it’s against your masters in DC, well lordy no, we can’t do that!

          3) Aw, how cute – someone can’t read a history book to see the times that the US military has murdered citizens on government orders. You don’t NEED to be in the streets on a regular basis because the FEAR is there to keep people from disobeying the government – the fear of hundreds of thousands (or millions – however many people there are total in all the branches of the military) with tanks and bombs to come through and murder them if they dare to try to force a change.

          And as I pointed out before – a lack of disobedience against the government implicitly implies that you support the things that they’re doing because the military / police are the only way that they can force their will on the people.

        • Ease off on the conspiracy rhetoric a bit, yeah? I don’t remember any orders to use our weapons to force the American people to obey. I think those might have stuck with me. Posse Comitatus still holds (for the moment) and many in the military pay it more heed than the average citizen. As to your points A) and B): As thatoneguy said, are you seriously advocating for a military coup? In the ideal, the military should remain neutral in domestic politics, not use organized force to circumvent the civilian government according to their own notions.

          Bear in mind, I don’t think the military will necessarily always be outside the fray. History does not support this thought. And I’m particularly concerned about things in the National Defense Authorization Act. But how about we wait for contemporary domestic military action before we start pointing nasty fingers at our neighbors?


        • So you don’t ever read a history book (or even Wikipedia)? You don’t know about the Bonus Army where US troops gladly murdered US veterans because they protested against the government’s behavior? What about the students who were murdered by the military at Kent State for disagreeing with the government? I’m sure if I had time to search I could find plenty more examples – but for you to claim that the US government would never have the military murder US citizens is either naive or you blatantly ignoring the facts to push your opinion.

          Try doing a quick read on Posse Comitatus – it only applies to LOCAL (city / county / township) governments. It does NOT apply to State governments or the Federal government. So yes, you may be right – they may actually be opposed to Mayor Backwater calling in an airstrike against some people who disagree with him, but they still gladly do anything they’re ordered to by the Federal government.

          If it means getting our rights back and actually changing our horribly corrupt government? Yes. Besides, I gave you another option – simply go on strike until they repeal unjust laws. It could be done 100% peacefully, but that would require you to disapprove of the governments behavior….something that we know you won’t do. When the civilian government is BLATANTLY violating the Constitution (not only the law of the land, but that thing you claim to have sworn to uphold), then it’s completely irresponsible of the military to just sit back and enforce the illegal laws instead of doing something.

          Because those “neighbors” are the only reason WHY the government can do these things. All of the unconstitutional behavior from the government is EXACTLY why the Founding Fathers explicitly said NOT to have a standing army in a time of peace – so that the military couldn’t be used as a threat against the citizens.

          But we the people have already lost. Our politicians grow ever more bold with ignoring the Constitution (like Obama appointing Federal judges that openly said that they don’t believe in the Constitution) and the military grows ever more narcissist in their belief that they are superior and above criticism from the peasants. Sorry, but my family (living family members, FYI) lived through this sort of thing before in Germany before they moved to the US – so I’m not going to easily buy the “Oh, we’re not going to do anything bad to you” argument.

        • Try a little reading comprehension. I never claimed the government would never use the military against the citizenry. The opposite in fact. Go back and read, again. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

          I didn’t serve in the Bonus Army, and I wasn’t at Kent State. So…still no recollection of being ordered to use our weapons to force the American people to obey.

          As to Posse Comitatus, yes it is a limitation on local governments. However, it also requires that orders for domestic action originate with the Constitution or by act of congress. This is a limitation on executive power. Does it imply an absolute limitation on the use of the military in domestic affairs? Of course not. It’s just another check on government power. And one most military leaders take quite seriously. And I fear it is currently under threat, as I intimated previously. And this gladly doing anything they’re ordered to bit? That is naïve. As I’ve said elsewhere, it’s a professional organization that takes seriously the idea of subordination to civilian leadership. Yes, that means following orders, it does not mean gladly doing anything they’re ordered to do. That is a mischaracterization utilized to push your opinion and a vast oversimplification.

          A military coup does not mean getting our rights back. Although it might change the government…who do you think should take over after the military exercises its power to throw the politicians out? You want them to go shoot the folks you don’t like and then…what? Stand around and wait while you organize an election? Or should they seize control and rework the government to fit their views, and then hold elections? Or just blow a bunch of stuff up and intimidate the civilian leadership until they fall back into line?? And go on strike? No. If the military exercises power, any power, to affect the domestic political scene it has invalidated itself and ignored the principle of subordination to civilian leadership. That is a terrifying scenario. As I said, the ideal is that the military is neutral in domestic politics. This bit about “that would require you to disapprove of the government’s behavior…something that we know you won’t do” is tiresome, by the way. Individuals in the military are allowed and expected to have their own opinions. And, oh gosh! They do. That is not the same thing as being allowed to use your position in the military as a platform to advocate your own politics. See, there’s this thing called subordinate to the civilian leadership… The military does not enforce illegal laws; they are not a law enforcement agency.

          And no, your neighbors in the military are not the only reason why the government can do these things. ALL of your neighbors are why. Ever more narcissist in their belief they are superior and above criticism from the peasants? Seriously, lose the monolithic characterization of the individuals in uniform and you might be able to make some coherent points.

          I think you are letting your personal experiences color your dialogue a little too heavily, and are therefore painting with a broad and inaccurate brush. Like I said before, maybe ease off on the rhetoric a bit.


        • Wow, that was a long rant for you to say what I’v been saying all along – that the military is a terrorist tool of the government to force the will of politicians upon the people. Just because you don’t want to say it in those words and hide behind the tired excuse of “following orders” or as you word it “submission to the government”, doesn’t change what your job actually is.

          But like I said – that’s why we’ve already lost. There’s not a single honorable person in the military who’ll stand up to them being used as a tool to terrorize both US citizens and countries around the world who dare to make internal choices that US politicians don’t approve of.

          Try getting a job where you do something that provides a benefit to society and you don’t have the ego boost of having tanks and bombs to enforce the views you’re told are “right” and you might change your mind about worshiping the military and the government.

        • Totenglocke,

          I’m not nesting this comment under yours because it formats too narrowly. But this is a response to your 1:05AM post.

          For clarity, I have not, do not and will not say what you’ve been saying all along. I do not think the military is a terrorist tool. The “just following orders” meme is tired, but it’s not mine. Subordination to the civilian authority is not a concept to hide behind, it is a principle designed to constrain the power of the military. Your failure to understand this reflects your failure to understand some broader historical and political points about military power and I can’t help you there.

          I think we’ve clearly established how little you understand about the military, in America and elsewhere, so your comments about honor and terror don’t hold much value for me, sorry.

          I’m not currently serving in the military, and have not for years, so I think I’ve got some distance from my masters. Maybe I’m still brainwashed though… I don’t worship the military, by any means. But neither do I buy into flat, politically motivated diatribes as having much value for describing the real world. Tired “jack-booted thug” arguments don’t carry much meaning outside of narrow political rhetoric and tend to drown out anything of import you might accidently say. My attitude toward government is…consistently adversarial. I’m afraid your assumptions say more about you, than me.

          I feel there’s enough information in our multi-part dialogue to allow observers to understand my points, so unless there’s some new information in other comments, I think I’ll retire from this discussion. Thanks for your time.


  5. Will there also be weapon (mechanical) safety tests and emission standards? How many grams of CO2 per round is allowed for each class?

  6. Don’t forget, there wouldn’t actually be a license requirement to purchase a gun and keep it or carry it on your own property, or other property where you have permission. After all a (driver’s) license is only to use vehicles on a “public highway”. My grandmother, for example, always had title to the car even though she never had a license. Heck, if grandad drove the car for her to a drag track she could with the owners permission have raced it. (as if, but that’s a family story).

    • I think you might be able to pick one and then the other part would simply be an “accessory”. So you can either have a firearm with a vehicular attachment or a vehicle with a firearm attachment.

      I personally would go with the former and stick a picatinny rail underneath just for a laugh. 😉

  7. Politically, it’s lots of fun to turn the irrational ideas of morons back onto them. Next time, some anti-gun nut advocates licensing, I’m going to start with your ideas and then mention how historically registration has lead to confiscation which has in turn lead to governments mass slaughtering their own people.

  8. When is old frog-face DiFi going to retire from the Senate? Speaking of weapons that kill which is DiFi is so against (sarcasm), several years ago word began leaking out that DiFi’s (who used to sit or chair the Armed Forces Committee) husband’s employer was receiving tens of millions in military contracts. Nancy Pelosi quietly transfered DiFi out of that position before some aspects of the national media began reporting it. Not surprisingly, the San Francisco Chronicle, DiFi’s home town paper, never reported it.

  9. A registration scheme like this also means a mandatory $125 fine for those who accidentally shoot others (like motorcyclists or hunters) that “they didn’t see”. Cuz that’s how traffic law seems to be enforced in true blue New York State…

  10. Not to mention that Hertz, Avis, etc, would also rent guns at every airport to those who don’t want to transport their own equipment when flying.

  11. Clever and well thought out, but by doing what this article states admits that the second amendment isnt a basic right, which it is, and admits that carrying a gun is a privelage, like driving a car, which it shouldnt be. i understand that current ccw laws treat the 2nd ammendment as a privelage too, im just saying i prefer a method that recognizes the 2nd ammendment as a basic individaul right. im not saying what we have right now is right either. i would suggest no regulation what so ever. an armed society is a polite society. sure the crazies and criminals would have guns under that, but they do right know anyway even with supposed laws to prevent it. the only difference would be that every sane and law abiding citizen would be armed as well. just my .02

    • I’d argue that there isn’t a constitutional right to conceal carry, but that restrictions on open carry a unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment preserves a basic individual right, but I believe that the Founders would have regarded someone who carried a concealed weapon as a somewhat shady character.

      • millions conceal carry right now and are not “shady,” however they have a concealed weapon to protect theirselves and others from the “shady” criminals. carrying a gun does not make you a criminal or a bad person, what you do with the gun is what could make you a criminal. the 2nd ammendment is there so we can protect ourselves from people who want to rob and kill you and to protect ourselves from tyrannts in govt that infringe on our basic inailenable rights. both examples are infringing on your inailenable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

        ps. im not trying to be an a-hole. i understand your point of view, im just responding with mine

      • Please share with me where in the Constitution/BoRs you read anything close to: … right to keep and bear arms OPENLY; or, NOT CONCEALED, etc.

        If the founders thought it important to address the manner of KEEPING AND BEARING, they would have addressed it as they thoroughly thought out EVERY WORD of the Constitution and BORs.

        We have the right of CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY – PERIOD!

        Constitutional Carry is the right to bear arms, openly or concealed at the discretion of the FREE citizen; free from infringement, anywhere from sea to shining sea and North to South Border plus Alaska, Hawaii and U.S. Territories and Possessions (only areas in the World where this fundamental HUMAN RIGHT is SUPPOSE to be Constitutionally PROTECTED at present); loaded and ready for immediate employment in the event of a spontaneous confrontation [PERIOD].

        The only justifiable restriction is when the carry location is of a true “sensitive” nature such as Courtrooms or Prisons. NO: educational campuses, Post Office’s, Public Parks or the presence of children and the like DO NOT QUALIFY as “sensitive”.None of the courts have directly addressed the “shall not be infringed” portion of the 2nd Amendment and for obvious reasons – huh?!

        Let the hangings and firing squads begin.

      • Neither have I. It always raises the question of what agency, exactly, has the authority to be granting and denying privileges to free citizens…


    • Indeed she does, in DC as well. Fewer than 200 people have such permission in Das Capital. Of course some pigs are more equal than others.

  12. Then there is that pesky history of “registration, confiscation, democide” documented at .

    Naah! I’ll pass on registration.

  13. Bruce, I might be wrong but I think that Joe Huffman (and perhaps others) did a similar theme a while back. Regardless, nice piece.

    Now, polish it up into a legislative bill format and tell your local congresscritter to file it for the next session. Don’t forget to cc Diane, Carolyn, Chucky the Shoe and Frank.

  14. Paperwork, fingerprints, photographs, fees, and background checks to allow people to carry a side-arm? What kind of nonsense is this?

    The right of self-defense is a corollary to the right to life; to deny one is to deny the other. The purpose of government is to insure our rights, not to infringe on them.

    The fact is that governments should not be involved in permitting the carriage of weapons, either openly or concealed, by anyone.

    Our constitution states that the right of the people to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed. Marbury v. Madison (1803) decided that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that any law that contradicts the Constitution is null and void. “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed … An unconstitutional law is void.” (16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 178)

    The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

    In Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) the Supreme Court stated that a constitutionally-protected right may not be licensed, nor a fee charged.

    In Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama (1962) the Supreme Court decided that “If the state does attempt to convert a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” (That means they can’t punish you, folks!)

    To paraphrase an oft-quoted movie line, “Permits? We don’ need no steenking permits!”


  16. Yeah even though the idea, as you outlined it, is good I’d have to pass on the registration.
    Never trust the gov’t not to turn a great idea into the silliest PoS possible.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here