But if they fail that demonstration, do you take their property?
I remember the story about poll tests - just to make sure, you know, that the voter was intelligent enough to be trusted with the franchise.
A black man presents himself at a polling place. He is told that he has to pass a poll test in order to vote. He's asked if he can read. "Yessuh. I can read." He is handed a newspaper and is asked to read the headline.
The newspaper is printed in Mandarin Chinese.
He stares at the paper for a moment and responds: "It says 'Ain't no black folks gonna be votin' here today.'"
Welcome to New York's handgun licensing system. Coming to your neighborhood soon, if the gun-grabbers have their way.
"Ain't gonna be no peons possessin' handguns here today."
ETA:
Generally Fabio, I agree with you. But I also remember something I read a while back: The thing to remember about legislation is that you can pass any law that you want. Just remember, it will be enforced by your worst enemy.
This is about half the reason I haven't gotten a concealed-carry permit yet. I hate having to submit to the State for permission. However, I live in Arizona, where open carry is still largely unrestricted, and I don't open-carry either.
Ah yes Kevin. One thing is the law, another how it's applied. And it always tends to be applied in the most restrictive and oppressive ways (with some exceptions).
Ah, have you heard? Following the ridiculous British knife amnesty, knife attacks have soared.
I guess some "expert" will be totally and genuinely dumbfounded now.
"Though, I think it can be argued that people who instead wish to carry should demonstrate at least they know how to safely operate a gun."
As would I, but...and it's a BIG "but"...by the very nature of empowering an entity to "license" something, you have by default empowered that entity to "deny" that which they are there to "license".
That works when it involves a Privilege, like driving an automobile on a public roadway, but when the thing being "licensed" is a Right, then it is Tyranny.
What is amazing is that the very people who shriek the loudest for gun "control" would split God's eardrums if someone attempted "Press control".
Imagine the outcry if the New York Times was governmentally barred from publishing anything, and the given rationale for the barring being their publishing of the plagiarization and outright fictions passed as reportage by their erstwhile correspondent Jayson Blair?
The ultimate objective of these gun-grabbers (as they've admitted) is the confiscation of guns, period. Moreover, licensing is not doing and will not do a thing to help crime rates, so confiscation would be the next logical step in their minds.
What? You don't CCW? Like, I don't think you're allowed to have a gun blog if you live in a shall-issue state and don't CCW. And if you live in a fascist state like NJ, you have to bitch and moan about it constantly on your blog.
I was wondering why we never hear about your "carry piece." Next thing we'll find out you don't really own any guns and that you're really Sarah Brady and that this whole blog is just a front!
Not to be a jerk, but when people start in with reasonings such as, "Though, I think it can be argued that people who instead wish to carry should demonstrate at least they know how to safely operate a gun," I just turn it all off. There is simply no reason to believe that stuff, and here is why; Does a state issued driver's license guaranty even a modest level of competence of any driver behind the wheel of the automobile? No, and the car is at least as dangerous. Two tons at 70 miles per hour has far more kinetic energy than a bullet.
Why should it be any different with gun handling? There will always be those who can't do it, and hopefully they will end up removing themselves from the gene pool, if given the chance. I know that I put up with some blindingly apparent incompetence while on the road on a daily basis, and I really wish that something could be done about it, but that attitude is similar to what the VPC/Brady Center want.
Mine was a just an idea for discussion; I know of all the problems with that and the others made good points against it without having to resort to "gun grabber" strawmen.
What? You don't CCW? Like, I don't think you're allowed to have a gun blog if you live in a shall-issue state and don't CCW.
What about those of us who are WORKING on that, does that count? ;-)
And I love what the GeekWithA.45 has said about any kind of license, especially those regarding firearms: "The power to license is the power to deny." Pithy, perhaps, but so true.
Has anyone noticed that the cost of the license in NYC is higher than the cost of some handguns? Taurus and Hi-Point come to mind; not exactly top-drawer but still cheaper than the license.
I guess that's another difference between car and gun licenses: a car license won't cost a significant fraction of the value of the car.
Just for clarificatin, I was not trying to encite you, or deny the veracity of your argument. I want competence too, but I just feel that it's a personal responsibility and a journey one takes of his own free volition. I don't want to argue with you about that point, because I know where you stand and what side you are on. I was trying to use some of your language, a quote, as a means for demonstrating the absurdity of the mentality that 'those people' often resort to when trying to deny you, and me, of our rights. It just doesn't make any sense.
The US have the Second Amendement that estabilishes a constitutional right to own & carry firearms. That should settle the issue, because as Bilgeman said, Rights cannot be licensed.
However, from the point of view of country where gun control is rather strict - as my Italy - unlicensed possession of firearms together with capability-dependant carry permit would be a huge improvement.
You might want to go ahead and get your CCW permit.
Yes, it does 'alert' the government that you (presumably) have at least one gun but I kind of think they're already aware of that (or can be if they want to).
The ever-indulgent wife and I both have our MO permits. She rarely carries and I don't carry every day. We're playing the odds, just like everyone else. Most of the time we go to work and we come home. We park in a garage next to the building we work in (we both work for the same company in different divisions that happen to be in the same building). Odds of anything 'interesting' happening are very low.
Now toward the end of the year she has to work late a lot which means, that we don't carpool and she tends to leave after dark when the garage is mostly empty. Attacking her at that time would be a bad idea.
Now even on those days I'm not carrying a firearm I humbly suggest that it would be a bad idea to try and attack me. I'm a 'layers of defense' kind of guy.
How does all this relate to you getting your CCW? Well, I assume that you also have days when you do more than just shuttle between work and home. Imagine how much worse you'd feel if something happened on one of those days than the average sheeple would. They at least have an excuse for not being able to do something while your's would be self-inflicted.
Plus, if AZ is like MO, you need to get your CCW now in case you do suddenly need it. MO has no provision for an Emergency Issuance so if you need it now and don't have it you're kind of out of luck for the month or three it takes to get it done.
"However, from the point of view of country where gun control is rather strict - as my Italy - unlicensed possession of firearms together with capability-dependant carry permit would be a huge improvement."
And yet the Italians make some of the best guns on earth.(I carry a Tanfoglio Force .45)... go figure
Sadly, yes. It would be nice to undo the encroachments upon civil liberties and natural rights at one swoop, but such a view isn't realistic.
It may well be counter-productive, since a bold move would tend to generate a stronger backlash.
So, from a tactical standpoint, it may serve our purposes better to reassert our rights in the same manner in which they were usurped...incrementally.
How many years after the Constitution was ratified did the American people think that riding a horse to get from one place to another was not a right? Why did the fact that technology advanced us to automobiles cause the ability to move from one place to another to cease being a right? And please don't give me this crap about using public roadways, because the assumption ought to be that everybody is paying taxes to maintain those roadways, and you can still have law enforcement arresting people who endanger other motorists, but that doesn't require licensing.
I mean, seriously, think about this. This is the frog in the pot syndrome. We've come to believe that the government needs to license people for everything they do, and yet it protects not a single person. Do you know how easy it is to get a license in most states? It is nothing but a revenue instrument for the government. Licensing for anything is just an excuse to take money from you and give the government a paper trail to hunt you down.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2006/08/i-will-not-license.html (16 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Yeah, a license to possess firearms is absurd.
Though, I think it can be argued that people who instead wish to carry should demonstrate at least they know how to safely operate a gun.
But if they fail that demonstration, do you take their property?
I remember the story about poll tests - just to make sure, you know, that the voter was intelligent enough to be trusted with the franchise.
A black man presents himself at a polling place. He is told that he has to pass a poll test in order to vote. He's asked if he can read. "Yessuh. I can read." He is handed a newspaper and is asked to read the headline.
The newspaper is printed in Mandarin Chinese.
He stares at the paper for a moment and responds: "It says 'Ain't no black folks gonna be votin' here today.'"
Welcome to New York's handgun licensing system. Coming to your neighborhood soon, if the gun-grabbers have their way.
"Ain't gonna be no peons possessin' handguns here today."
ETA:
Generally Fabio, I agree with you. But I also remember something I read a while back: The thing to remember about legislation is that you can pass any law that you want. Just remember, it will be enforced by your worst enemy.
This is about half the reason I haven't gotten a concealed-carry permit yet. I hate having to submit to the State for permission. However, I live in Arizona, where open carry is still largely unrestricted, and I don't open-carry either.
It frightens the proles.
Ah yes Kevin. One thing is the law, another how it's applied. And it always tends to be applied in the most restrictive and oppressive ways (with some exceptions).
Ah, have you heard? Following the ridiculous British knife amnesty, knife attacks have soared.
I guess some "expert" will be totally and genuinely dumbfounded now.
FabioC:
"Though, I think it can be argued that people who instead wish to carry should demonstrate at least they know how to safely operate a gun."
As would I, but...and it's a BIG "but"...by the very nature of empowering an entity to "license" something, you have by default empowered that entity to "deny" that which they are there to "license".
That works when it involves a Privilege, like driving an automobile on a public roadway, but when the thing being "licensed" is a Right, then it is Tyranny.
What is amazing is that the very people who shriek the loudest for gun "control" would split God's eardrums if someone attempted "Press control".
Imagine the outcry if the New York Times was governmentally barred from publishing anything, and the given rationale for the barring being their publishing of the plagiarization and outright fictions passed as reportage by their erstwhile correspondent Jayson Blair?
Regards;
The ultimate objective of these gun-grabbers (as they've admitted) is the confiscation of guns, period. Moreover, licensing is not doing and will not do a thing to help crime rates, so confiscation would be the next logical step in their minds.
What? You don't CCW? Like, I don't think you're allowed to have a gun blog if you live in a shall-issue state and don't CCW. And if you live in a fascist state like NJ, you have to bitch and moan about it constantly on your blog.
I was wondering why we never hear about your "carry piece." Next thing we'll find out you don't really own any guns and that you're really Sarah Brady and that this whole blog is just a front!
I keep a piece in my truck. Does that count?
Not to be a jerk, but when people start in with reasonings such as, "Though, I think it can be argued that people who instead wish to carry should demonstrate at least they know how to safely operate a gun," I just turn it all off. There is simply no reason to believe that stuff, and here is why; Does a state issued driver's license guaranty even a modest level of competence of any driver behind the wheel of the automobile? No, and the car is at least as dangerous. Two tons at 70 miles per hour has far more kinetic energy than a bullet.
Why should it be any different with gun handling? There will always be those who can't do it, and hopefully they will end up removing themselves from the gene pool, if given the chance. I know that I put up with some blindingly apparent incompetence while on the road on a daily basis, and I really wish that something could be done about it, but that attitude is similar to what the VPC/Brady Center want.
Forget it. Competence tests are just too onerous.
-B,
Mine was a just an idea for discussion; I know of all the problems with that and the others made good points against it without having to resort to "gun grabber" strawmen.
What? You don't CCW? Like, I don't think you're allowed to have a gun blog if you live in a shall-issue state and don't CCW.
What about those of us who are WORKING on that, does that count? ;-)
And I love what the GeekWithA.45 has said about any kind of license, especially those regarding firearms: "The power to license is the power to deny." Pithy, perhaps, but so true.
Has anyone noticed that the cost of the license in NYC is higher than the cost of some handguns? Taurus and Hi-Point come to mind; not exactly top-drawer but still cheaper than the license.
I guess that's another difference between car and gun licenses: a car license won't cost a significant fraction of the value of the car.
Fabio C.,
Just for clarificatin, I was not trying to encite you, or deny the veracity of your argument. I want competence too, but I just feel that it's a personal responsibility and a journey one takes of his own free volition. I don't want to argue with you about that point, because I know where you stand and what side you are on. I was trying to use some of your language, a quote, as a means for demonstrating the absurdity of the mentality that 'those people' often resort to when trying to deny you, and me, of our rights. It just doesn't make any sense.
Sorry about the confusion.
Maybe I should clarify a bit too.
The US have the Second Amendement that estabilishes a constitutional right to own & carry firearms. That should settle the issue, because as Bilgeman said, Rights cannot be licensed.
However, from the point of view of country where gun control is rather strict - as my Italy - unlicensed possession of firearms together with capability-dependant carry permit would be a huge improvement.
Kevin,
You might want to go ahead and get your CCW permit.
Yes, it does 'alert' the government that you (presumably) have at least one gun but I kind of think they're already aware of that (or can be if they want to).
The ever-indulgent wife and I both have our MO permits. She rarely carries and I don't carry every day. We're playing the odds, just like everyone else. Most of the time we go to work and we come home. We park in a garage next to the building we work in (we both work for the same company in different divisions that happen to be in the same building). Odds of anything 'interesting' happening are very low.
Now toward the end of the year she has to work late a lot which means, that we don't carpool and she tends to leave after dark when the garage is mostly empty. Attacking her at that time would be a bad idea.
Now even on those days I'm not carrying a firearm I humbly suggest that it would be a bad idea to try and attack me. I'm a 'layers of defense' kind of guy.
How does all this relate to you getting your CCW? Well, I assume that you also have days when you do more than just shuttle between work and home. Imagine how much worse you'd feel if something happened on one of those days than the average sheeple would. They at least have an excuse for not being able to do something while your's would be self-inflicted.
Plus, if AZ is like MO, you need to get your CCW now in case you do suddenly need it. MO has no provision for an Emergency Issuance so if you need it now and don't have it you're kind of out of luck for the month or three it takes to get it done.
FabioC;
"However, from the point of view of country where gun control is rather strict - as my Italy - unlicensed possession of firearms together with capability-dependant carry permit would be a huge improvement."
And yet the Italians make some of the best guns on earth.(I carry a Tanfoglio Force .45)... go figure
Sadly, yes. It would be nice to undo the encroachments upon civil liberties and natural rights at one swoop, but such a view isn't realistic.
It may well be counter-productive, since a bold move would tend to generate a stronger backlash.
So, from a tactical standpoint, it may serve our purposes better to reassert our rights in the same manner in which they were usurped...incrementally.
At sea and under sail, we call this "tacking".
Regards;
How many years after the Constitution was ratified did the American people think that riding a horse to get from one place to another was not a right? Why did the fact that technology advanced us to automobiles cause the ability to move from one place to another to cease being a right? And please don't give me this crap about using public roadways, because the assumption ought to be that everybody is paying taxes to maintain those roadways, and you can still have law enforcement arresting people who endanger other motorists, but that doesn't require licensing.
I mean, seriously, think about this. This is the frog in the pot syndrome. We've come to believe that the government needs to license people for everything they do, and yet it protects not a single person. Do you know how easy it is to get a license in most states? It is nothing but a revenue instrument for the government. Licensing for anything is just an excuse to take money from you and give the government a paper trail to hunt you down.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>