Would still require legislation, and without an amendment most of us "gun nuts" wouldn't go for it.
Adam Churvis wrote: > 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:257169 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
