Gun Control

Recent mass shootings have once again ignited debate about "military style" semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15.  Should they be banned outright, as they were for a period from 1994 to 2004 under the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban?

See my previous post Defending the 2nd Amendment for my thoughts in general on the subject of the solution to senseless gun violence. This post is focused more specifically on an approach to regulating gun ownership that balances the concerns about access to weapons that are most often used in mass shootings with the constitutionally protected right to own guns.

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says the following:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So, while gun ownership is protected, the amendment also says that the people form a militia that is expected to be "well-regulated."  The question, then, is what type of regulation makes sense?

First, what is was the intent behind the people forming a militia?  There are essentially two purposes, one being to defend against outside invaders as well as internal threats. The other is to defend against a federal government that attempts to control the people through military force, as was being done by the British in the time leading up the the American Revolution.

With that in mind, having weapons that allow for military-level defense seems to be appropriate, but that doesn't mean everyone should have unlimited access without oversight.  What would be an appropriate level of regulation, then?

First, it seems reasonable to restrict access to guns to certain groups of people, including people with a history of criminal violence and people with mental illnesses that makes them either prone to violence, unable to control impulses, or generally unable to make rational decisions concerning safe use of a firearm.  In order to implement such a protection, background checks are important.

Secondly, safe storage, control, and use of firearms requires training.  While many people are raised by parents that teach their children the responsibilities and dangers associated with gun ownership, many other have no such training, unless they join the military or the police.  This can lead to accidental shootings due to improper handling or unrestricted access.  Therefore, it is reasonable to require training and evidence of proper knowledge and skills.

It seems to me that the simplest way to accomplish these two objectives, background checks and education, is to require anyone that owns a gun to carry a firearm owners ID (FOID) card that confirms that a background check has been completed (and periodically renewed), and the class of firearms that the person is qualified to possess and use.  

Similar to a driver's license, which every state requires, showing that a person has passed a test and is qualified to drive certain classes of vehicles, a FOID card could do the same.  Each state should issue a gun ownership license that meets a basic standard in order to be accepted in other states.

The classes of licenses might be along the lines of the following:

• Class A - Pistols, rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic weapons
• Class B - Pistols, rifles, and shotguns, excluding semi-automatic weapons
• Class C - Pistols and rifles below caliber Y
• Class D - Pistols and single-shot rifles below caliber X

States could separately regulate concealed carry and/or open carry.