1911Forum banner
1 - 1 of 25 Posts

· Registered
480 Posts
No, California's law reflects a fundamental problem to gun prohibition - number of people who own guns.

Licencing is useful in this capacity - it raises the entry red tape to "buying a gun" and learning to use it. New users may be interested; but the trouble keeps them away. A new gunowner perpetuates the cycle of there being "too many gunowners".

Mandatory storage requirements are a BIG part of this. Having to own a safe to buy a gun adds $1000 to the purchase of your first $300 gun. . . . THAT will chase the newbies away. Contrary to what you may think, many turned in guns in Australia were still legal; but people got rid of guns that were worth less than what it would cost to meet mandatory storage laws.

The number of gun owners must be reduced to a more manageable level before any real confiscations. . . The licencing clearly did this, look to the UK, they used to have a higher rate of gun ownership before the licencing. The Canuck gunowners fought to have the AR15 kept off the "restricted" list, because the extra red tape on buying one would destroy the semi shooting sports.

Don't buy the idiocy. How hard would it have been to have to prove you could drive a stick-shift before you were allowed to touch a car? (To make gun licenses TRULY a safety thing you must ban people from touching guns before they get their licence, remember?)

Yeah, it could probably be done to some degree; but it's a lot easier to learn to use a gun if you buy one and some ammo and apply common sense. Methods forced down your throat will cost a lot more, and discourage participation.
1 - 1 of 25 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.