This is what the gun control law should be in the US.

Step 1- Gun "school" and written exam- You should be required to take a course on gun safety and how to use a gun correctly, that is 7 days 1-2 hours per day. From how to load, to how to shoot, unload, keep locked up safely, and about actual gun laws, and self defense laws. On the 7th day you are given a test and must get 90% or higher.

Step 2- Gun training- You should then be required to prove that you can handle a gun safely, have good aim, and can show how to properly store it. If you fail on safety, loading, unloading, or accuracy then you must start over another day. 3 strikes and you have to redo the school part.

Step 3- Back ground check- In order to get approved for your gun licence, you should have to get your doctor to clear you as being physically and mentally safe putting themselves in legal jeopardy if anything happens with in 6 months, then a criminal background check, no prison time, and then consent of your spouse, and recommendation from 3 other people that they feel you are safe to carry.

Step 4- License and restrictions- Guns are allowed for Hunting or target shooting, and self defense only what is necessary to stop the crime and keep yourself alive. Up to the judge to decide. Also all license holders go through a daily criminal background check, through a system that updates 24/7. Anything comes up or a reference/doctor recants their endorsement you get it revoked. Guns must be handed back in with in 24 hours or face criminal possession of a fire arm.

This is largely based off of the Canadian system.

 

move to Canada then. I like the idea of charging those who want to restrict our rights with felony-treason

 

Without repealing the Second none of this is possible.

 

What would all of the above ultimately accomplish, not simply in theory but in actual practice, that would deem it both a worthwhile approach and a success? Fewer firearms illegally acquired by prohibited individuals? Fewer firearm-related suicides? Fewer incidents of firearm-related negligence by those who cannot be bothered to exercise critical thinking skills?

 

It would reduce the number of gun homicides by 6/7ths

 

Sure it is, it does not prevent you from having a gun it simply makes you prove you can handle one safely and that you are not a danger to yourself or others

 

Quite incorrect, all four of those suggestions are infringements upon the Second and would be ruled unconstitutional.

 

How does any of these 4 infringe on the right of law abiding or mentally sound individuals?

 

One and two are requirements for private ownership, which is a direct infringement of the Second, number three is a defacto federal registration requirement, which has already been ruled an infringement and four is a limitation on traditionally lawful purpose's which the USSC has ruled is unconstitutional under Heller.

As such, they are all dead on arrival.

 

The trouble with that is it makes too much sense.

 

Yea right, stupidity like, "Also all license holders go through a daily criminal background check, through a system that updates 24/7," any idea what that would do to NCIC and what about the presumption of not guilty until proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

And this gem, "you should have to get your doctor to clear you as being physically and mentally safe putting themselves in legal jeopardy if anything happens with in 6 months," doctors have a hard enough time getting insurance, there isn't a company in the world who is going to underwrite such a risk.

 

Two particularly good ideas.

I might suggest a chip be placed in every new firearm allowing for the gun to be tracked continually. That wouldn't be unconstitutional would it?

 

Every gun owner in canada lovrs the condtcon background check because they know it keeps them safe. Only someone commitibg a crime would care.

As for doctor thing if they trust you they will sign

 

As I already stated a doctor is never going to sign off on that way too much unknown risk, as such it is nothing more than a backdoor gun ban.

BATF already tried that and a whole bunch of guns went missing, most falling into the hands of drug smugglers and one of them was used to kill a CBP agent.

 

BATF already tried that and a whole bunch of guns went missing, most falling into the hands of drug smugglers and one of them was used to kill a CBP agent.[/QUOTE]
If you don't trust someone enough to sign off for them to be armed then why do you trust gun owners

 

In the U.S. as litigious of a society we are, they isn't a doctor in the country who will take that risk.

In addition if someone could find a doctor who would take that risk his malpractice insurance would be so astronomically high it would cost the prospective gun buyer thousands for the exam and signoff.

As such the courts will rule it unconstitutional, because of undue burden it places on the purchaser and then you are back to step one.

 

If you don't trust someone enough to sign off for them to be armed then why do you trust gun owners[/QUOTE]

Try again that doesn't make sense no doctor signed off on F&F.

 

Insurance is for civil not criminal

 

Actually that probably would be found unconstitutional due to privacy rights.

Then there are the technology issues, how will the tracking actually work and what would be the size of the device and most important who pays for the program?.

 

I like it and it would likely be constitutional and effective at reducing gun deaths

 

I understand and if something happens say a shooting even a justified self defense shooting, it will go civil and everyone from the shooter to the doctor will be sued for personal injuries or a "wrongful killing" which in civil is a lot easier to achieve versus criminal court.

 

But they can revoke it at anytime and remove their license to carry

 

By amounting to a total prohibition of the exercising of the second amendment under all circumstances without prior permission first being granted by government upon completion of certain and arbitrary requirements.

 

And what does that solve?

Think it out a little.

 

It has already been attempted, and it ultimately proved to be a failure.

Beyond that particular matter, every square centimeter of space within a firearm is already being occupied by currently existing components, leaving absolutely no space for such a device. Such an inclusion would require a drastic redesign of an already established blueprint for inclusion, and could not be retrofitted to already existing firearms on the market.

Even if such could be done, there would be absolutely no way of preventing the chips from being removed by the owner for whatever reason.

Indeed it would be, under any standard of review.