Gunner Control [WARNING. This is a long, but I believe important, commentary.]

A few new thoughts on dealing with weapons and the citizens' right to bear arms. This is a work in process. It is an attempt to start discussions in a new direction from "gun control"

For several years I have been formulating a system that might help with the improper use of firearms in this country. The overall planning is hampered by several factors, however. The first is the fact that each state has regulations about the use, transport, purchase, etc. of firearms that makes it almost impossible for a citizen to know what is and what is not a legal process. Secondly, the availability of a number of types of weapons confuses the issues around what kinds of guns make sense to have in the hands of a variety of persons. Third is the market of stolen and personal sale transfers of guns from one person to another, making a murky trail of possession.

The whole issue has been approached by almost everyone involved as an attempt to control guns. This has been shown to be hopeless given the current regulations, even though laws currently passed try to control them.

I have come to believe that the whole issue should be approached in a new way. The control and all association laws should be directed to gunner control. By this I mean the process would be one of defining the gun holder as the issue, and attempt to assure that anyone having a gun is knowledgeable about the laws that apply to owning and using weapons, is skilled in the use of the type of weapon that person buys, and that the person can be tested and approved for the purchase and ownership of a weapon of any kind.

Firstly, any such system must define the qualifications of a person to have a weapon of a type that discharges a destructive payload to be delivered at some distance from the user. I suggest that classes of users be defined that are allowed to own such weapons in the first place. Age is a natural starting place to restrict a person from having a weapon of one of the defined classes. For example, a young child should not be allowed to purchase, own, have access, or use of a weapon of a class that is military in nature. Physical limitations may play a role in determining weapon ownership and use, but this isn’t perfectly clear without study. The reason a person wishes to be eligible weapon owners/users should also be able to show a knowledge of that type of weapon and knowledge of the laws applying to its purchase, sale, and use.

I suggest there are five legitimate reasons for a person to have a weapon of any class.

1.      A member of the military, National Guard, or paramilitary force such as police, private investigators, drug officers, etc.
2.      Collectors of functioning and non-functioning weapons.
3.      Hunters.
4.      Sportsmen, such as target shooters and those using weapons in the course of competitions like the Olympics.
5.      Civilians in general who can make a case for a need of self defense, at home or work, such as store owners/operators, drug counselors, psychologists, etc. who have a higher percentage of contact with marginally dangerous clients.

This list, or one more properly drawn after study, would represent the “gunners” that any law would attempt to control. Any law proposed should be described as “gunner control.”

The process embodied in such gunner control legislation is what I have been working on for several years (off and on). Some years ago I presented an early version to some lawyers for the NRA, who agreed with me on its general approach and saw nothing objectionable with it. This is encouraging, but there are a lot of issues that have to be explored to get this into a reasonable law.

Firstly, and unfortunately, my process would require the establishment of a new government agency. I’m not really interested in doing this, but I haven’t seen where in the current government hierarchy the appropriate commission might be located. The agency I suggest would be something like the Federal Communications Commission in its original charter for controlling the use of frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. It was originally in the Depart of the Navy, I believe, but eventually was handled by the specifically created FCC.

When I decided to become a radio amateur there were a number of steps I had to take to prove myself. First, I had to register and pay a fee which helped to defer the cost of the agency. Second, I had to take a written exam which covered the laws and regulations in the use of the spectrum: what transmission modes were used at which frequencies, what power limitations there were on each band of frequencies, what type of equipment was allowed, what record of spectrum use had to be kept, etc. Third, I had to take a practical exam, demonstrating my ability to perform certain communication actions, primarily the sending and receiving of Morse code at a specified speed. Lastly, I had to agree to be monitored in my use and produce records of my activities if needed.

This did not seem at the time to be an unmanageable burden to me. I also had no objection to my call letter assignment being published with my name and address. In fact, this became useful to me in finding others with whom I had contact, and for business purposes. I got a lot of advertising for radios and electronic parts.

Note that this system controls the users of the equipment, not the equipment. There were and are some restrictions on the use of equipment in very limited areas. I believe it is still considered illegal to own and use a police scanner to follow police transmissions, but it may be the use of scramblers and codes may have eliminated that restriction. Such bans were minor.

A similar system would control gunners (not guns), and provide for the ability of persons to own and use weapons of various classes only if they were licensed to do so. What follows is an outline system, suggested as a starting point, for such gunner control.

All weaponry would be categorized as to what class of weapon it is. A cannon, for example, would never be thought of as a hunting class weapon, or fall into a category of self-defense. It would easily be a military weapon, and perhaps a collection item, if non-functioning, etc. Such categories and classes would have to be carefully defined based on some measurable characteristic of each weapon. I can’t imagine what all these might be, but such elements as rate of fire, size of payload, portability, etc. could figure into the description.

Once categories are defined, a set of tests covering the laws and regulations and practical issues of each class of weapon would be developed. These would represent the defining requirements a person must meet to be eligible to purchase and own a weapon of a class. A person passing the exam(s) for a given class would be issued a license of that class. It would only be legal for a person holding a license of a class to purchase or own a weapon of that class. A person could, of course, qualify for more than one class, but do so for each individually.

On passing all the requirements for eligibility for a class license, the person’s name, address, and class license information would be entered in a license data base which would be publicly available, probably at some charge or subscription rate. This data base would be available to groups who had an interest in licensees of weapons classes. This might include police departments, state police, manufacturers, legal departments, etc. Even an individual might wish to purchase access to the data base, but there is no clear reason that I can imagine at this time for this.

Upon entry into the data base, any entity that has access could search and/or scan the records and could submit an objection to a new licensee being issued the license based on one or more of a set of grounds spelled out in the legislation. Only these grounds can be used to file an objection. This is a key element of such legislation. As such, the grounds must be carefully determined and defined. Some grounds would seem to be obvious: the applicant is a documented felon; or has a psychiatric history of dangerous behavior; or is a documented member of a violent/terrorist/or anti-government group; or is a person wanted for smuggling, drug dealing; etc. The completion of this list of grounds might take the most time to get right and likely would have to be revised from time to time.

After a reasonable waiting period which would allow for objections to be filed, the license would be issued to the applicant. Objections could still be filed at a later date, but the license would remain issued and in effect until the grounds were upheld.

If an objection is filed it would have to be evaluated and a ruling made within some specified time from the date of the objection being submitted. After that time, the objection would become moot and normal laws would come into play for suspending a license due to weapons violations, as defined now.

After a period of two years (or other agreed timeframe) the applicant’s record for an issued license would be removed from the data base. The main reason for the record to stay “live” for some period of time is to catch the impulse licensed weapon buyer.

 When a person attempts to buy a weapon, whether through a dealer or from another individual, the seller will be responsible for identifying the purchaser, checking the license of the purchaser and insuring that only weapons of the class for which the purchaser is licensed are sold. The normal instant background checks can also be made.

The record of the sale is a delicate issue at this point. It could be entered into the data base or not. I currently believe it should not be. It should be logged in the seller’s records and available later if called for.

Penalties should be defined for a person selling or having a weapon of a class without a license, or for which he is not licensed. This is analogous to a person caught driving without a license, or operating a taxicab without the proper class license, etc.

All other weapons issues relating to general use of would still apply at the state level, such as concealed carry permits, transportation of weapons regulations, use of weapons in various jurisdictions, etc. But the right to a weapon and the ability to purchase a weapon would be regulated by “gunner control.”

The agency could have the right to retest an individual if issues arise concerning misuse of weapons by a licensee, or at after some appropriate licensed time period. There should also be requirements for a licensee to report changes of address to the commission and for new licenses to be issued at the current address. This is the same as the requirements for amateur radio licenses.

More issues and more details are needed to make this approach reasonable and possible to be itegrated into the current social context. For example, anyone with a weapon but no license for the class of the weapon should be given a period in which the person could proceed to qualify and pass examination leading to issuance of a license before a confiscation of the weapon is made. Such a confiscation could be made immediately and the weapon withheld until the person acquires a license in the proscribed period. Records have to be established and submitted to the agency when weapons change hands from one person (licensed) to another person (licensed). This is much like transferring automobile ownership. Consider: a person is allowed to purchase as many cars as he wants, as long as he doesn't operate them, sell them to others, etc. without the proper licensing and record keeping and reporting for them. Cars are considered imminently dangerous; i.e. they can be a danger when used incorrectly and in ways that they were not designed for. Guns and other weapons are the same. 

High tech adventure – my latest journey

It seems that every so often I get carried away with the availability of some new technology that calls to me like the Siren called Odysseus. I can’t resist. The first major case of this was getting a new, more expensive, smart cell phone. I had a very nice “flip-phone” for several years. It made and got phone calls, a primary use of a cell phone. It cost me $35 and was easy to slip onto my pocket. I liked it. It didn’t sing, dance, or allow me to play “Angry Birds.” It was a phone.

Then, along came Uber. A perfect add-on career for my retirement situation (needing money) and completely under my control: “Drive when you want for the time you want to drive and make tons of money in your spare time.” Sounds great!

But! you have to have a smart phone, a small computer to give you the path you would have to drive, take the payment, all automated for the happy Uber driver. So, I shopped around and my cell phone service provider had the best pricing for a moderately powerful unit. I think it was one of the “left overs” as the manufacturer was switching to newer, more expensive, powerful and function overloaded phones. I signed on, and started researching how I could become a happy Uber driver. Perfect!

Then I hit a very interesting road block: reality. As I researched I found more and more that Uber, which serves a very desired service, and one which makes a lot of sense from time to time for the public, had its dark side. I was in Georgia for my son’s wedding. Everything worked well. After the event and following evening, he called for an Uber to pick me up at the hotel and whisk me to the airport. In the morning, there was a bit of a problem connecting with the Uber driver. I guess I’m a little hard to notice. Anyway, when Uber came it was a pleasant trip to the airport, and all prepaid by my son. Nice. Then I heard from my son that the driver had taken longer than he should have and took some weird path to the airport. My son called Uber and they said they were giving him a rebate since the driver had done the drive wrong. I find this amazing. They knew how long he took and what route he drove, etc. Like magic, they have all the information they need to run a great business. But, after analysis, I have come to the end point to believe that the drivers don’t really make as much as it would appear. Hourly, at any rate, I can’t afford to become an Uber driver.

Fortunately, I’ve been doing calligraphy for many years (over 50). I did it free for organizations and political parties, personal events, and so on. My seating chart for my son’s Bar Mitzvah was great (a torah scroll with the attendees seats, written on a model scroll that I built). So, it was a new revelation that people could make money selling art and products they create. Etsy! and there are several others, I gather. I discussed this with my son and he said we could set up a “store.” He would do all the planning and I would do the calligraphy. I started studying how Etsy works, how you get a sale, how you send out a product, etc. Etsy makes it all pretty easy, and I can see that there is a lot more under the covers that you have to do to understand what you have to do to get results you want.

Along with all this is the requirement (at least from my point of view) to produce a high quality product that people cannot get easily on the open market. I, for example, hand create all my calligraphy, do all the design and layout, work in various hands, and can customize anything in many ways. How to communicate all this and do the jobs and get the product out is a real challenge. As starters, my son had me research what were products more people wanted, and in what sizes, and what hands, and papers, cost out all the elements, and then get busy and create an inventory of some calligraphy that would be our store’s starting products. Whew, this was a lot. As we worked on this I found I needed to have some tools to handle the work I do and produce final products that would be the best I can do.

There turn out to be a lot computer programs that would be of help to us, including things like having shared and synchronized data points that would keep us on the same efforts. Thankfully, my son knew that kind of thing because that’s what businesses do, and he’s an MBA from Pepperdine. And it’s the kind of thing he does in helping people set up new or renewed businesses. My background is in computers, so finding and evaluating programs to do what I need to do graphic processing wasn’t a big problem for me. I found a lot, and as I found them I read a lot of reviews and analyses of them. Then, I had to find, test, and use them myself. I learned a lot!

After seeing all the really great programs, and some of the most expensive, I have found a flock of “free” programs and services that I could be using. The learning curve on some of them is pretty sharp, mostly because they have so many ways of doing all kinds of graphic processing, and the language used in describing them to the user is an unknown argot to me. So, I am learning, trying, and amazed at all the things I have to absorb and use properly. As it is coming along, it is streamlining the work I do, and makes very good products at a pace that makes them available relatively quickly, compared to what I used to do in the old days. I have pretty much settled on Krita (a free graphics program similar to Paintshop Pro, which I used in past years for editing my photos, and Photoshop which I can’t afford) and I’m looking at ipiccy, which is an on-line graphics program that runs in your Chrome browser, but puts you work in the ipiccy servers. Until I understand the complete meaning of that I won’t use it.

Anyway, this is a long trip, and we are just starting. It takes a long time to expose people to your work, and the Internet is a gigantic place (a universe) and getting them to look at my work is a daunting task, which I have to figure out. We are starting to get some “looks” at the products, and have even sold a few which our buyers have said they are pleased and happy with. Since the startup investment isn’t overbearing, I am pleased to see anything working. As each day goes by I learn more and more, and I am willing to try things that I am just beginning to understand. I’m even starting to look at “trade shows” where I can display some of my work. Maybe that is another thing to learn about.

And all this is because of high tech. If I was living in a small town, where social media was a weekly column in the newspaper, and you already knew a lot of people from daily contact, it would be a handout, maybe a sample, and word-of-mouth to build a following. In today’s world it’s Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and what else is out there that are like my new smart phone replacing my flip-phone. I have to learn the new stuff to make my way in the world. This blog is my “flip-phone” stage of reaching out. I guess I’ll have to move on. BTW, that media I listed above are things I have never used more than a few times each! I haven’t figured out yet how to use them, either.

Look out world, here comes my store: LabowCalligraphy on Etsy. It should have said “Father and Son,” which is “Gary and Dave.” If you have a moment, just take a look at https://www.Etsy.com/shop/LabowCalligraphy and see if you like it. I’d love to hear from anyone with comments on the store. Thanks.

Guns, Guns, Guns, vs Laws, Laws, Laws

The new mass shooting (how many makes it “mass”, BTW) in VA brings up all the old canards:“action on suppressors, a ban on assault weapons, and expansion of local authority to regulate firearms,” and more and more.

Thinking on just these three, which are from a statement from Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, I come to some conclusions. Let’s talk.

 Suppressors, by which I think he means “flash suppressors,” which are attached to the barrel of a weapon to shield and reduce a flash at the exit point of a rifle by dispelling the hot gases and as a way of reducing or eliminating a flash that gives away the location of the rifle. For someone in an exposed position, this wouldn’t seem necessary since a mass shooter is usually easy to locate. If shooting from cover it might give an advantage and make it much harder to locate the shooter. I can think, off hand, of two incidents/crimes where this was the case. But generally speaking this wouldn’t have much impact on mass shooting sprees that I know of or can imagine. So, in this case, the governor is “blowing smoke.”

The ban on assault weapons is merely nonsense. I would bet the governor, and most people who oppose “assault weapons” don’t really know what they are. Some are just cosmetic, giving a tough look to the weapon. Some are relatively useless, and I suspect rarely used in mass shootings, like a bayonet mount or a grenade launcher. In general, specific weapons and models that are frequently mentioned are only produced and legal to be sold to military and paramilitary group members. One, usually described as a large capacity clip (and what exactly is “large”) could have an impact on number of firings before another clip must be loaded. I suspect a “devoted” shooter can change clips in a few seconds. But even this might help. The sale of “assault weapons” is banned in most cases to citizens. Nevertheless, the very description gives rise to vague and whimsical application to many weapons that aren’t really used in an “assault.” Note that the use of a flash suppressor is not needed to make a weapon an “assault weapon. If the barrel is grooved or threaded for allowing attachment of a flash suppressor, that makes it one.Other stuff, like a folding stock or a stacking buckle, has nothing to do with the application of a weapon. A flash suppressor, for example, does not enhance the damage potential of the weapon. The semi-automatic nature of most of the legal banning characteristics is a red herring. Almost all weapons made and sold today (and since the Wild West days of the revolver) are semi-automatics. Otherwise, we are talking about the single shot weapons which require loading, or cocking the hammer, etc. to set the weapon in a condition that allow it to be fired. Semi-automatic weapons use systems that eject the spent round, replace it with a new round, and sometimes cocking the hammer mechanism using springs and/or compressed gasses produced by the round just fired. Everybody has seen the action of doing this manually for a weapon that hasn’t been fired yet (usually in movies) when they see the actor pull out the weapon and pull the front of the weapon’s barrel back and let it snap back. That’s loading a round and cocking the weapon for firing. Handguns are pretty much made that way at this time. [Aside: there are other little differences to this action, such as the first part of a trigger pull performing this “loading” action and the rest of the pull operating the hammer. Don’t just use my brief description as a formal explanation of all semi-automatic weapons.] 

The third thing mentioned is the one I will find greater exception to. Expanding the local authorities’ regulations is opening the can of worms. Most local authorities approach this task as one of eliminating types or specifically named weapons, use of a variety of attachments, ammunition, and technical enhancements (like aiming systems). This gets the authority into the area of bans, punishment, confiscation, etc. for weapon purchase and possession. All of this, I say in general, is a change to the Constitution. But local authorities can’t just change the overall law of the country as applied to citizens. There is a way to modify the Constitution, purposefully made difficult to do. We have a “guarantee” that the Constitution is the law of the land, specifying how the government is organized, what powers each component of the organization may or may not do, and what conditions are guaranteed to each citizen. It says that citizens have a right (always) to own and bear arms. A store owner who posts a sticker on his window saying the store is a “No gun zone” is taking the citizens right to bear arms. But a store owner can’t just cancel a Constitutional right by his decision and putting up a sticker or sign. That would lead to chaos. It’s already a bit like that when you go from state to state, and one allows you to carry a firearm in their jurisdiction and the other doesn’t. Many people think it’s the weapon that is “dangerous.” They want to take “dangerous” weapons away from everybody (except police, the military, and themselves and their armed guards). Of course, true criminals and psychotic persons don’t care about “laws” and will carry weapons anyway. And mass shootings seem to be oriented to being carried out in “No gun zones” so that the gun-free citizens there are simply helpless victims. One can’t even rely on the police to be alerted, get to the scene, and actually take some action to stop a shooter. Sometimes the police are just chicken and don’t do the (very difficult) job of challenging a shooter. Sometimes the police wait around until they have enough of a group and information to challenge a shooter. This last actually has some sense when they don’t know just how many and where shooter(s) are. But sometimes the authorities are so worried about offending someone (a voter or supporter) that they just can’t bring themselves to allowing the citizens to defend themselves by having at least some of them in a “soft target” group to have weapons for defense. 

Often some sensible ideas are put in place. If I am carrying and I have to go into a large government building where sometimes contentious situations happen, with perhaps angry, frustrated people have to interact, citizens coming in have to “park their guns at the door,” just like in the old wild West. In cases like this, however, provisions are made to place your weapon(s) in a locker to which you have a key or ticket, and armed guards and police are in the building to provide safety at quick response times. Pretty sensible! Not perfect, of course, because no policies can ever address everything that could happen, like people having a small weapon in their shoe heel. 

If someone came to believe that robberies were almost always carried out by people who drove in get-away cars that were four door sedans, wouldn’t it be sensible to ban sale of four door sedans? That would stop all those robberies.Well, anyone thinking about this would come to the conclusion that it was silly. The cars (four door sedans) didn’t commit the robberies. Did they? Guess how this applies to stopping felony use of weapons in killings: ban the sale of those weapons. But robbers are clever; they will switch to using two door sedans! Okay, ban all cars! Simple. My example: ban all weapons! Simple.The only problem is both of these attempts are stupid, too.Where is the problem and what can be done? It’s the person doing the killing, robbery, etc. that is to be stopped. How? The answer, as I see it, is to stop the person from buying and possessing weapons of the type used in the felony. And how can we do that? 

Think about this: could be set up a system that could prevent (to a high degree) the sale and possession of a person who can be shown to be a risk to have a weapon of one or more types? I have tried to come up with such a system, which doesn’t try to control the “gun” (gun control), but tries to control the “gunner” (gunner control). My initial system for doing this I first came up with some 45 years ago. I have modified it from time to time, and currently have a system I describe in a blog entry that hasn’t gotten much traction.I have been on a popular call-in radio show with it, have sent it to my senators and representatives and have gotten such stupid letters back from them that I know they (and probably staff members handling their mail) didn’t read it. Useless. It’s comical how I know this; ask me about it sometime if you are interested.

My current suggestion is in my blog for October, 2017. You can get it using link https://garythecommonman.blogspot.com if interested.
This, plus my rationale above is the current argument.
Thanks for reading.

TV Flim Flam Revisited

Well, he have a nice patio out back with chairs for the adults and a sandbox for the kids. Nice, but gets hot or annoying when it rains. The sun is in your eyes if it's late in the day because it faces west. Looks like time to think about an awning!
Sun Setter starts advertising in the Spring to sell them for your Summer use. Good thinking. But their flim flam gives me the willies. (That's a retro comment.) Here's what they say.
First they show a bouncy, friendly couple who decided they need an awning. We are told they got theirs for "less than $700 dollars." Then we are told we can get one for as little as $599 dollars. Then we are told we can get a certificate (for a limited time only, so get with it) for $200 off. Here's my analysis.
Less than $700 is probably $699. That's the most it could be to fit the claim.
$599 as a price is the starting point the "bare bones" system. No size is given and no installation cost is mentioned, and the only add on I remember was a motor to open and close the awning rather than using a hand crank, which they show an older female using. See, it's easy to open and close.
Then there's that $200 discount coupon. If they used it when they paid under $700 dollars it would mean that their cost was as much as $899. Almost $900.
If you want a motorized system, at some size that fits your area, and have somebody else install it, it's all add on to $900 (less discount which is for a limited time only, perhaps for a year!). This could start reaching into the "over a $1000" range! There was a little mention that it is "assembled in the USA." Great. I'll guess it was made somewhere else: China? Peru? Mexico? India? Who knows?
My next step would be to seek out an internet site for Sun Setter and find out more details, but frankly, after watching the TV ad I just give up.
No awning this year! I rate this ad as poor, but I guess it will excite some folks to call up for their certificate and get on the contact list for interested buyers. They'll probably regret that. I know I would.
I still enjoy my patio, though.

A New Beginning (just like Star Wars!)

Well, it's looking like I need to pay a bit of attention to this blog I have nibbled at from a long time ago. I really don't have a lot of time anymore, since I'm trying to start up an Etsy store to help with my old-age retirement (I just turned 80). But Quoro is somewhat limited with it's entry size (which I didn't know until I tried to post there) and I should spend more regular hours trying to get my thoughts in print (or whatever it's called in digital form). So, feel free to read any of my old stuff and comment on anything ... just stay calm and with no name calling. I believe in sensible discussion with any points of view accepted. The other stuff (which sometimes funny and often offensive) doesn't really help anybody. Maybe I should find a way to promote traffic to my blog. Maybe not. It's a commitment either way..
Take this as an opening shot and I'll try to keep this blog current, though not yet on any predictable schedule right now.
BTW, if anyone reads this and is interested in calligraphy, that's a main topic of interest for me right now. Feel free to check Etsy.com and search for Labowcalligraphy my newest endeavor that is taking up a lot of my time. Not complaining; I enjoy it!

Gunner Control (Revisited)

For several years I have been formulating a system that might help with the improper use of firearms in this country. The overall planning is hampered by several factors, however. The first is the fact that each state has regulations about the use, transport, purchase, etc. of firearms that makes it almost impossible for a citizen to know what is and what is not a legal process. Secondly, the availability of a number of types of weapons confuses the issues around what kinds of guns make sense to have in the hands of a variety of persons. Third is the market of stolen and personal sale transfers of guns from one person to another, making a murky trail of possession.

The whole issue has been approached by almost everyone involved as an attempt to control guns. This has been shown to be hopeless given the current regulations, even though laws currently passed try to control them.

I have come to believe that the whole issue should be approached in a new way. The control and all association laws should be directed to gunner control. By this I mean the process would be one of defining the gun holder as the issue, and attempt to assure that anyone having a gun is knowledgeable about the laws that apply to owning and using weapons, is skilled in the use of the type of weapon that person buys, and that the person can be tested and approved for the purchase and ownership of a weapon of any kind.

Firstly, any such system must define the qualifications of a person to have a weapon of a type that discharges a destructive payload to be delivered at some distance from the user. I suggest that classes of users be defined that are allowed to own such weapons in the first place. Age is a natural starting place to restrict a person from having a weapon of one of the defined classes. For example, a young child should not be allowed to purchase, own, have access, or use of a weapon of a class that is military in nature. Physical limitations may play a role in determining weapon ownership and use, but this isn’t perfectly clear without study. The reason a person wishes to be eligible weapon owners/users should also be able to show a knowledge of that type of weapon and knowledge of the laws applying to its purchase, sale, and use.

I suggest there are five legitimate reasons for a person to have a weapon of any class.

1.      A member of the military, National Guard, or paramilitary force such as police, private investigators, drug officers, etc.
2.      Collectors of functioning and non-functioning weapons.
3.      Hunters.
4.      Sportsmen, such as target shooters and those using weapons in the course of competitions like the Olympics.
5.      Civilians in general who can make a case for a need of self defense, at home or work, such as store owners/operators, drug counselors, psychologists, etc. who have a higher percentage of contact with marginally dangerous clients.

This list, or one more properly drawn after study, would represent the “gunners” that any law would attempt to control. Any law proposed should be described as “gunner control.”

The process embodied in such gunner control legislation is what I have been working on for several years (off and on). Some years ago I presented an early version to some lawyers for the NRA, who agreed with me on its general approach and saw nothing objectionable with it. This is encouraging, but there are a lot of issues that have to be explored to get this into a reasonable law.

Firstly, and unfortunately, my process would require the establishment of a new government agency. I’m not really interested in doing this, but I haven’t seen where in the current government hierarchy the appropriate commission might be located. The agency I suggest would be something like the Federal Communications Commission in its original charter for controlling the use of frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. It was originally in the Depart of the Navy, I believe, but eventually was handled by the specifically created FCC.

When I decided to become a radio amateur there were a number of steps I had to take to prove myself. First, I had to register and pay a fee which helped to defer the cost of the agency. Second, I had to take a written exam which covered the laws and regulations in the use of the spectrum: what transmission modes were used at which frequencies, what power limitations there were on each band of frequencies, what type of equipment was allowed, what record of spectrum use had to be kept, etc. Third, I have to take a practical exam, demonstrating my ability to perform certain communication actions, primarily the sending and receiving of Morse code at a specified speed. Lastly, I had to agree to be monitored in my use and produce records of my activities if needed.

This did not seem at the time to be an unmanageable burden to me. I also had no objection to my call letter assignment being published with my name and address. In fact, this became useful to me in finding others with whom I had contact, and for business purposes. I got a lot of advertising for radios and electronic parts.

Note that this system controls the users of the equipment, not the equipment. There were and are some restrictions on the use of equipment in very limited areas. I believe it is still considered illegal to own and use a police scanner to follow police transmissions, but it may be the use of scramblers and codes may have eliminated that restriction. Such bans were minor.

A similar system would control gunners (not guns), and provide for the ability of persons to own and use weapons of various classes only if they were licensed to do so. What follows is an outline system, suggested as a starting point, for such gunner control.

All weaponry would be categorized as to what class of weapon it is. A cannon, for example, would never be thought of as a hunting class weapon, or fall into a category of self-defense. It would easily be a military weapon, and perhaps a collection item, if non-functioning, etc. Such categories and classes would have to be carefully defined based on some measurable characteristic of each weapon. I can’t imagine what all these might be, but such elements as rate of fire, size of payload, portability, etc. could figure into the description.

Once categories are defined, a set of tests covering the laws and regulations and practical issues of each class of weapon would be developed. These would represent the defining requirements a person must meet to be eligible to purchase and own a weapon of a class. A person passing the exam(s) for a given class would be issued a license of that class. It would only be legal for a person holding a license of a class to purchase or own a weapon of that class. A person could, of course, qualify for more than one class, but do so for each individually.

On passing all the requirements for eligibility for a class license, the person’s name, address, and class license information would be entered in a license data base which would be publicly available, probably at some charge or subscription rate. This data base would be available to groups who had an interest in licensees of weapons classes. This might include police departments, state police, manufacturers, legal departments, etc. Even an individual might wish to purchase access to the data base, but there is no clear reason that I can imagine at this time for this.

Upon entry into the data base, any entity that has access could search and/or scan the records and could submit an objection to a new licensee being issued of the license based on one or more of a set of grounds spelled out in the legislation. Only these grounds can be used to file an objection. This is a key element of such legislation. As such, the grounds must be carefully determined and defined. Some grounds would seem to be obvious: the applicant is a documented felon; or has a psychiatric history of dangerous behavior; or is a documented member of a violent/terrorist/anti-government group; or is a person wanted for smuggling, drug dealing; etc. The completion of this list of grounds might take the most time to get right and likely would have to be revised from time to time.

After a reasonable waiting period which would allow for objections to be filed, the license would be issued to the applicant. Objections could still be filed at a later date, but the license would remain issued and in effect until the grounds were upheld.

If an objection is filed it would have to be evaluated and a ruling made within some specified time from the date of the objection being submitted. After that time, the objection would become moot and normal laws would come into play for suspending a license due to weapons violations, as defined now.

After a period of two years (or other agreed timeframe) the applicant’s record for an issued license would be removed from the data base. The main reason for the record to stay “live” for some period of time is to catch the impulse licensed weapon buyer.

 When a person attempts to buy a weapon, whether through a dealer or from another individual, the seller will be responsible for identifying the purchaser, checking the license of the purchaser and insuring that only weapons of the class for which the purchaser is licensed are sold. The normal instant background checks can also be made.

The record of the sale is a delicate issue at this point. It could be entered into the data base or not. I currently believe it should not be. It should be logged in the seller’s records and available later if called for.

Penalties should be defined for a person selling or having a weapon of a class without a license, or for which he is not licensed. This is analogous to a person caught driving without a license, or operating a taxicab without the proper class license, etc.

All other weapons issues relating to general use of would still apply at the state level, such as concealed carry permits, transportation of weapons regulations, use of weapons in various jurisdictions, etc. But the right to a weapon and the ability to purchase a weapon would be regulated by “gunner control.”

The agency could have the right to retest an individual if issues arise concerning misuse of weapons by a licensee, or at after some appropriate licensed time period. There should also be requirements for a licensee to report changes of address to the commission and for new licenses to be issued at the current address. This is the same as the requirements for amateur radio licenses.

More about Gunner Control

Let’s talk a little about gun control.

Every time I write or otherwise correspond with legislators about controlling those who buy guns and turn out to be dangerous to the public I get a nice letter telling me that THEY are doing what is needed to keep guns out of the hands of “bad actors.” They may well think they are because of the Brady Bill and the background check system that is run by the FBI.

It is true that some persons are prevented from buying a weapon legally because of failing a background check. Good. But some persons are denied purchase of a weapon wrongfully. This denies a person of their second amendment rights. Is it better to prevent persons who should legally be allowed to purchase a gun because they are mistakenly pulled in the same net as those who should not be allowed to legally purchase a gun? That’s in the line of “deny them all and let the courts sort it out.” Not a good procedure because many persons do not file protests which they would probably win because of cost, time, and low level of true need for a gun.

In 2014, for example, the background check system denied purchases for 90,895 persons of which 4,411 were overturned when challenged. It is probable that most of the others were not challenged, or even were and resulted in success and the purchase was “allowed” to proceed. Such permission, however, is purged from the system in 24 hours after being given. If the purchaser doesn’t return in that time, another check is made and will probably result in the same denial as the first since it is using the same procedure as the previous check.

The information that is being checked for is clearly listed and seems logical and meaningful. These are listed here (source: Wikipedia) and reads as follows:

A prohibited person is one who:

·        Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

·        Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

·        Is a fugitive from justice;

·        Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;

·        Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;

·        Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;

·        Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

·        Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;

·        Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;

·        Has been convicted in any court of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence", a defined term in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)

While I have no major objection to this, I do object to the unknown number of “false hits” due to a variety of reasons. The one most cited resulted in overturning a false hit is non-matching fingerprints of the database to the applicant. That means doing a lot more to capture fingerprints to prove you are not a “prohibited person.” I’m sure gun dealers, and private sellers wouldn’t be thrilled with having to take fingerprints and submit them at the point of purchase. Impossible!

Three major changes are needed that my suggested plan tries to make are:

1.    The screening check emphasizes the person applying to purchase a weapon. Notice this is not “gun” oriented but includes any type of weapon that is deemed dangerous enough to be legally restricted: rocket launchers, cannons, flame throwers, crossbows, etc. A person who I would trust to use a shotgun for hunting may not be somebody I want to have a rocket launcher. See my post on “Gunner Control” that breaks out reasons to have a weapon.

2.    The screening check slows the purchase to several days (or more) while the fact of the application to purchase is made available to a wider audience than the FBI database. Police, mental health practitioners, businesses, anyone who want to subscribe to the information, would have a chance to participate in identifying “prohibited persons” that they think they know of.

3.    The screening check shows the reason that the person is applying for a particular kind of weapon, and have a “precheck” provision that the person has already passed an examination that tests for knowledge of the law and handling of that kind of weapon. Notice that age has no play in this, although the plan could have age limits, and even other physical limits (vision checks, some types of diseases, etc.).

My proposed plan, “Gunner Control” is a work in progress that tries to describe the kind of control over weapon purchases I think would work. I am open to changes and welcome comments. Just be polite and reasoned. No name calling and off-topic comments, please.

My master problem with the current instant check is that it IS instant. This is not enough time to explore the purchaser, and consider the purchaser by more than an undoubtedly flawed database. Another problem is that it doesn’t do anything about the seller, making them withhold a weapon for a purchaser that hasn’t passed a “precheck” proving knowledge about the weapon type and the laws concerning it.

My general objection, of course, is that non-approved persons of any kind will simply steal or buy guns (and maybe other stuff) from fellow lawbreakers. Maybe this is where “stop and search” comes into play. But that’s another topic for another day.