On Rethinking the Concept of Gun Permits

Pam Gillespie @arctichamster

28 February 2018

Today the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL returned to their classrooms for the first time, two weeks to the day after a 19 year old former student took an Uber to the school, walked into the Freshman building and systematically gunned down 17 students and educators.

There has been a lot of discussion since then. The president held a ‘listening’ session with survivors of the shooting, their parents, grief-stricken parents who lost kids in this and other massacres; I use a quote here because although there were several ideas and suggestions made during the course of conversation, the only idea the president seemed to focus on – and continues to focus on still – is the incredibly dangerous idea of having armed teachers in the classroom.

There have also been discussions in the past two weeks on strengthening background checks, potentially reinstating the ban on assault weapons, possibly looking at closing the gun show loophole…basically the very same discussions that are had by the very same people every single time this happens. The only good news to come out of all of this is that something might just get done this time – because the students of SDHS (many of whom will be able to vote in the 2018 midterms) won’t stand for it.

One thing that I’ve never heard discussed, now or ever, is a change in licensing. Many states don’t require any type of license (generally referred to as a permit) in order to buy a firearm; and generally, the only gun range requirement is to be between 18-21 (or have a parent/guardian present). The gun show loophole simply defies logic.

All 50 states require drivers to take and pass a written exam, followed by a driving test – both of which must be passed by a minimum score in order to be able to legally drive within the state (and because of reciprocity, the country). Whether or not the driver owns a car, that driver must also be insured. And if this driver goes on to learn to ride a motorcycle or a semi-trailer truck, they will have to again take a written and driving test for each – which will then be noted on their driver’s license.

Why is this not a requirement for firearms? Gun shows, gun ranges, private sales, licensed dealers – for each one of these transactions, they should have to present a valid firearms license for their state (NO reciprocity). In order to qualify for such a license (which initially would only be used with handguns), this person would have to pass:

• A written exam, proffered by the ATF, on basic differences between a pistol and a revolver; firearm nomenclature; care and safety practices, etc. Passing with 85% or better.

• A practical exam, proffered by the ATF, using both pistol and revolver; static and moving targets; care and cleaning of the firearm; proper storage practices, etc. Passing with 85% or better.

• A background check via both NICS and NCIC, as well as a thumbprint that will be visible on the license.

• A 10 day waiting period on all firearms purchases, with a 21 year age minimum (25 year age minimum on assault weapons).

• Mandatory Firearms Insurance, either through a Homeowner’s/Renter’s rider, or through a specialized policy offered through a specialized carrier.

Records would be maintained for all licenses issued, in every state – just like with driver’s licenses. Anytime a license holder wants to upgrade their license (say, to add a supplemental for an AR-15 or higher, certain types of long rifles, shotguns, or any other weaponry that would require retesting and certification) would need to repeat the testing and background check process. All certifications would be noted on the license, and all licenses – regardless of level – would be valid for one year from issuance.

Detractors will complain about the extra steps and paperwork; but in Florida, it’s actually illegal to maintain a registry of firearms owners (FL Statute 790.335) – how is law enforcement even able to do their jobs?

It will take time, but I believe that licensing and insuring firearms owners/recreational shooters the same way we do drivers would go a long way to stop a lot of the unintentional shootings that happen every day in the US. Until the assault weapons ban is reinstated and a move is made to limit the availability of these weapons of war, we have to try things that haven’t been done before.

I propose something along these lines as a start.