Refining and expanding my solution a bit: 1) Grandfather-in all existing legal weapons which are legally owned by citizens, and give amnesty for turning in illegal weapons before some "X" date.
2) Require state-level registration of these weapons (I know, I know, but everybody will have to make concessions if this is going to work for everybody). 3) Institute a mandatory Life Without Parole for anyone caught with any illegal weapon of any kind (similar to what Australia did, and very effective). 4) Make all manually-operated weapons (bolt action rifles, revolvers, and the like) legal across the board. 5) Make the age to own weapons 18 with parent's consent, 21 without, but let children of any age with parent present operate weapons. 6) Let individual states prohibit any type of weapon they like, other than manually-operated. 7) Let individual states waiver each request for ownership of a prohibited weapon on an owner-weapon-cause basis, with waivers not to be unduly withheld, and an appeals process for denials based on claims of insufficient cause. Pay for the waiver system using a straight $250-per-weapon transfer fee. 8) Do not impose carry or storage restrictions of any kind, but make it clear that civil liabilities and even criminal charges may well apply when weapons that are not reasonably secured are used to harm others. 9) Encourage, but do not require, firearms safety training through arms-length associations with gun- and hunter-oriented organizations, and make it clear that unsafe or reckless discharge of weapons can likewise expose gun owners to civil liabilities and even criminal charges. 10) Encourage tighter association between gun owners and local police and sheriffs by instituting local militia chapters that are part of a formal state militia, automatically qualifying every adult as a member, but enabling people to withdraw by written request. The police and sheriffs could lead the militia, thereby getting to know these gun owners better as team members, and vice-versa. Also good to have a pool of pre-organized citizens instantly available to help search for missing children, help with local minor disasters, etc. More "we" versus "us and them." What do you all think of these ideas? Are we getting somewhere? Could this actually fly? Respectfully, Adam Phillip Churvis President Productivity Enhancement > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Churvis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 9:03 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Right To Bear Arms > > I have always thought that the intention of the Second Amendment was > three-fold: to establish that the states needed their own militia, that > the > citizens were that militia, and that *both* the states' militia and the > individuals making up those militia had the right to keep and bear > arms, > both jointly and severally. > > By "keep," history shows that individually-served weapons such as > rifles, > pistols, muskets, spikes, bayonets, and the like were kept by either > their > individual owners or, in the case of issuance, those to whom those > weapons > were issued by the state -- or in some cases local -- government. They > were > kept in their own homes or on their persons. > > In the case of crew-served weapons, which back in the day would mean > cannon > and the like, and today could mean anything from artillery to some of > the > larger anti-tank missiles, it was impractical for most citizens to > store > them at their residences. > > But if a citizen had the room to do so, it was actually desired for > them to > keep such crew-served weapons in, say, a barn or a blacksmith's shed. > This > was so that citizens would have instant access to them *and* so that > the > government would not know where a single large cache of citizens' > weapons > could be confiscated. > > If a citizen either made his own crew-served weapon or purchased one of > his > own accord, there was nothing preventing him from doing so. Citizens > were > trusted with even the largest and most powerful weapons of their times, > and > there were as many criminals per capita in that day as there are today. > But > criminals were categorized as such (like today) and people protected > themselves against them by arming themselves. > > Should citizens be allowed to own artillery? Well, logic tells me that > "never say never" is a good policy, because who knows all conditions > that > might apply? That's where the beauty of the waiver system works so > well. > Currently, you apply on a weapon-by-weapon basis to the federal > government > for a waiver on the prohibition of the weapon. You go through a > vetting > process so stringent it would make a nun cry, and if the fed can't find > cause to deny you, it's yours (after paying a stiff transfer tax, that > is). > > I would eliminate the federal waiver system in favor of one at each > state's > level, but essentially make it the same sort of animal. That way each > state > can look at the weapon-owner-cause relationship carefully and approve > or > disapprove on a case-by-case basis, thereby reasonably protecting the > general public while reasonably ensuring against undue restriction on > individuals' rights to own even the most powerful of weapons. > > What do you all think of this? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:257131 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
