You need a license to drive a car, why shouldn't we have the same restrictions on guns???
Anti-gun people always like to use this analogy. Personally, I'm against requiring people to have a license for guns, but if we were going to do that, I would be in favor of licensing in the same way driver licenses work.
1. You don't need a license of any sort to own a car, only to drive one on public roadways. So no license would be required to own any gun, only to carry one in public.
2. Driver's licenses from all states are recognized as valid in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. So, only one "gun license" would be required to be legal to carry in all 50 states plus D.C.
3. The minimum age to get a driver's license ranges from 14 to 18. So, depending on the state, 14- to 18-year-olds could get a gun license permitting them to carry a gun. No more of this "you must be 21 to buy a handgun or ammunition for a handgun."
4. No background check, fingerprinting or waiting period is required to get a driver's license. I'd like to see the same for guns.
5. There are no arbitrary and capricious limits on engine size, fuel tank size, maximum potential speed, or prohibitions on automatic transmissions. So, there would be no arbitrary and capricious limits or prohibitions on specific calibers, magazine size, or auto fire capability.
6. Mufflers are not only permitted but required on cars, to reduce noise. So, the use of sound suppressors to reduce noise would be at least permitted.
7. People don't call for banning cars or enacting more legal restrictions on cars every time someone does something dumb that causes an injury or death. (People do rightfully call for stricter enforcement of existing rules.) So, everyone would stop demanding that guns be banned or more strictly regulated every time someone does something dumb with a gun.
8. Driving, while not a Constitutional right, is viewed by many people as one and is generally treated by the states as one, with "shall issue" driver's license procedures. We don't allow a sheriff or police chief to arbitrarily decide if someone is allowed to get a driver's license; if a person can pass the driver's license test, they get their driver's license. Also, their license won't be taken away unless and until they break enough driving laws to justify taking away their license. And renewing a driver's license is simple and inexpensive. So, gun licenses would all be shall-issue, and sheriffs and police chiefs would not have the ability to arbitrarily decide who gets to have one, and renewing them would be simple and inexpensive.
9. In all states and cities, getting a driver's license is not dependent on the applicant demonstrating an actual "need" for one. So, no states would require that anyone demonstrate an actual "need" to carry a gun in order for the applicant to qualify for a license. There wouldn't be cities where having a license is limited to the elite of the city (like Howard Stern in NYC) but where no average person is ever able to get a license no matter how qualified they are.`
10. You can freely transport your car across state lines, drive it across state lines as long as you have a valid license, and sell it to someone in another state. I'd like to see the same for guns.
11. There are no silly laws anywhere requiring that cars be kept with an empty fuel tank except when in actual use, and that fuel has to be stored separately from the car.
I could go on..... Yes, let's license guns the way we license cars. I oppose gun licensing, but we'd really be better off under such a scheme.