Just about every time the issue of gun control comes up someone will make the "we license cars, don't we" and suggest that we need to license guns like we license cars.
Well, I'll take that compromise right now. Right. this. instant.
we license guns like cars, then, first, licenses are only required for
cars and the operators thereof, that will be operated on the public
streets. No license required for use on private property. (Note: Don't
bother challenging me on this; I used to drive autocross and have not
only seen, but driven, more than a few cars that are not licensed,
titled, or otherwise registered because they were never intended for use
on public streets. In fact, most of them weren't legal for public streets.)
will be available to individuals as young as 16, learners permits (for
operating with supervision on the public streets) as young as 15
(depending on the State).
Licenses valid in all 50 States and every municipality within those States.
valid, by treaty, in most foreign nations (An "international drivers'
license" is simply a translation of your State drivers' license into
various foreign languages so the local law enforcement can know what
your State licensed you to drive--has no legal weight in and of itself).
No federal license required for running a business buying and selling.
No background checks for purchase. Indeed, if you don't intend to operate it on public streets no paperwork at all beyond a bill of sale (and that's just to protect you in case the previous owner wants to claim you stole it).
No license required to transport
on public streets, concealed or not, (Those cars at the autocross?
They didn't get there by apportation--they were all transported on
public streets, many in ways that would count as "concealed" for
firearms in at least some States). Oh, and at least one state considered (transported in a vehicle) exactly the same, legally, as carried on ones person for firearms so it's entirely valid to consider a trailered vehicle comparable to a firearm on ones person for purposes of comparison. After all, if the State considers the comparison valid for one, then it's valid for the other, if we're really "licensing guns like cars".
Dire emergence a valid
proactive defense for an unlicensed operator. If you have a real,
life-threatening emergency that calls for the use of your item, then
that justifies even an unlicensed user using an unlicensed item on the
No limits on size, power, or operating mechanism for items that are not to be used on the public streets.
and because it bears repeating: no license required for item or
operator if not being used on public streets, and even then "dire
emergency" justifies non-licensed use on those public streets.
If we "licensed guns like cars" the only time you would ever need a license is if you were going to operate (drive , shoot ) the object (car, gun) on public property. And dire, life-threatening emergency would be an affirmative defense of operation even without a license.
So, the only time a license would be needed would be for non-emergency use of the firearm. I.e. hunting and sport shooting. None would be required for self defense since that, by definition, is "dire emergency".
"License guns like cars" would be an unqualified improvement
on the current situation from the perspective of gun owners because in
every aspect where cars are restricted, guns are restricted every bit as
In short, to make it clear, if we "licensed guns like cars" the only time one would ever need a license is for shooting of guns on the public streets and an actual emergency (like, say, a self-defense situation) would still permit unlicensed use. In short, there would be no need ever to license the ownership or carrying of guns.