|
For example I have a Drivers License and my car has a license Plate but NEITHER is what is being proposed.
My Driver's License is permission from the state to operate a Motor Vehicle on the Public Road. If I can keep my car on my property I do NOT need to have a Driver's Licence. The state only requires me to have a Driver's Licenses if I take that car off my property.
Thus a Driver's License is more like a Concealed Weapon Permit, i.e. permission from the state to carry a gun on the public streets. I do not need a Concealed Weapons Permit to OWN a gun (provided I keep the gun on my own property), I only need a CWP if I decide to take a Gun onto the Public Streets (just like I need a driver’s license to take my car onto the same streets).
Now what about the License plate on my car? While that is a Plate to show I have the Permission to operate that Vehicle on the Public Roads. Again I do not need my car licensed if I keep my car on my property. This is like the Requirements that if I transport a gun on the Public Roads it must be unloaded even if I am hunting. Another close equivalent are hunting Licenses, i.e. If my car has a Valid License Plate, I can drive it on the Roads, if I have a Valid Hunting License I can carry my gun in areas open to Hunting (I would say the same public Roads but all the states I know BAN hunting on or from Public Roads).
Notice NEITHER IS A LICENSE TO OWN A WEAPON OR A CAR. Now some states and Cities have a requirement that you have a license to even OWN a gun (New York City comes to mind as to that requirement) but even New York City does not Require you to have a license to BUY or OWN a car (For all practical purposes it is almost impossible to operate a car on one's own property in New York City, but could be done in a showroom etc., so hard not impossible in such urban environments.
In Many ways the Gun Control debate is a Clash of Cultures, a modern Urban Culture that sees areas of private ownership of property as be limited (i.e. someone’s house) especially in scale (i.e. Impossible to have Private Lands large enough to operate guns and/or cars WITHOUT going onto public property or other person’s private property) and the older Rural Culture where a person can operate such items without affecting Public Property and other’s Private Property (Very possible to own enough land to fire a gun so that the bullets NEVER leave one’s property, and operate a car without the car leaving one’s property).
In most Urban Areas, it is IMPOSSIBLE to operate a gun or a car without taking them onto public property (i.e. the nearest road or street) or someone’s else’s private property (Your Neighbor’s yard or even his apartment).
The problem is the LAW reflects BOTH situations and tries to balance between them. Thus the differences between a Licenses mentioned above and this ongoing debate on Gun Control. Many urban residents (and by this term I include suburbanites) can not accept the fact it is POSSIBLE to operate firearms (and Cars) without a license. Such situations are NOT within their life experience. On the other hand, many rural dwellers have so long lived in areas where not only is it possible to operate guns and cars WITHOUT licenses many of them have done so at various times in their lives.
This is the error or bring Car Licenses (and even Dog Licenses) into this debate. None of the licenses are required if you keep the item license on your property (and that goes for Dog Licences, only need them if the dogs, by themselves or with their master, goes off their owner’s property).
What gun Controllers want is NOT a license to use, or possess but a license to OWN. Your Driver’s License, your Car’s license Plate, even your Dog’s License does not give you the right to own. You can get any of them WITHOUT owning a car or a dog, AND if you keep you dog in your house AND your car on your property you do not need a License.
Thus the license idea of Guns is NOT the same as with Cars or Dogs.
|