Last weekend’s shooting in Arizona continues to weigh heavily on the minds of so many Americans.Â Since a Republican dominated House and a nearly divided Senate appear unlikely to reinstate the ban on assault weapons that expired in 2004, perhaps it’s time for the State of California to step in.Â Now any proposal to pass tougher gunÂ laws is going to raise the ire of gunowners and the NRA.Â
Currently, it’s pretty easy to own a gun in California.Â All firearms sales (which includes private and gun show sales), transfers, or loans, all have to go through a California licensed firearms dealer. Any application for sale or transfer must be made with a licensed California gun dealer before any firearm may be sold or transferred.Â But you don’[t need a permit, a license or a registratrion to own a shotgun.Â Â No license ot permit is needed forÂ a handgun, although these weapons are registered.
The purchaser must present the dealer with a valid California Driver’s License or a California I.D. Card and supply their thumbprint. The purchaser of a handgun must also provide additional proof of California residence. The dealer sends a copy of the application to the state’s Dept. of Justice and the local police chief.Â The CA DOJ is supposed to conduct a background check on each buyer at a fee andit takes 10-days for aÂ waiting period before delivery of any firearm. Dealers must keep a register of all firearm transfers.Â
The state is in need of new forms of revenue.Â Why not have the state require all gun owners to be licensed? On top of that, perhaps allguns should carry insurance likes cars, motorcycles and boats do.Â We have earthquake, fire and flood insurance in California.Â Why not insurance for your firearm?Â If someone steals your weapon, and it’s used in the commission of a crime, insurance can be there to bail you out of possible litigation.Â If you’re a duck hunter using a simple shotgun or have a small handgun for “personal protrection,” you’re license and insurance rates are low.Â If you want a Glock with a large magazine, your license and insurance are pretty costly.
Revenues collected by the state could go to cities for law enforcement, or to prisons, or parks.
No one said anything about taking away guns.Â We are talking about licensing and insuring them in the same way we do our homes, cars, and boats.Â It won’t be a financial burden to sportsman who hunt but for those who want assault weapons, it’ll cost you.Â The licensing and insurance will identify those individuals who haveÂ assault weapons while providing new streams of revenue for the state.Â If the insurance and license is too much, a gun owner could either turn their weapon in to local law enforcement or get rid of the weapon altogether.Â If there are fewer guns on the street, perhaps crime will go down too.
Now nowhere in these ideas is anyone suggestion this move abridges anyone’s second amendment rights.Â We’re not talking about banning anything, just requiring that guns are licensed, registered and insured.Â Like when you buy at car lorf truck.Â As long as I have to swipe my license to buy cold medicine at my local pharamacy, why not a little more control over the way weapons are sold in this state.Â Since we’re at it, I’d like to see a massive tax on bullets too, but calling for a tax on that isn;t a vote getter, is it?