[ExI] The future of the Second Ammendment

[David Lubkin]

Mike Dougherty wrote:

>We have to pay to have our cars registered every year, why aren't 
>guns the same situation?  I am unable to legally operate a car 
>without a license (passing sufficient testing on safe operation) as 
>well as insurance (for when I/others fail to operate the vehicle 
>safely)  Why is gun ownership less burdensome than car ownership?  I 
>make this case because more people are killed by auto than by wanton 
>gun violence... so it seems we would get more "utility" by revoking 
>the right of automobile ownership - but _that's_ outright absurdity, yes?

I am surprised to read this on this list.

In the United States, you may legally own and operate a car
without any licensing or scrutiny of either you or the car, if you
are on private property. There may be jurisdictions where this
is not true, but it generally holds. Certainly it is true in the
five states I've lived in.

This is not a minor matter. Many parents teach their children
to drive on their own property, before they are old enough for
a learner's permit. I knew a man with a 500,000 acre ranch,
and I've lived on farms where driving on them was essential.
Parking lots are usually private property. As are the roads in
an office park or condominium complex. The Dulles Greenway
is a privately owned toll road to Dulles Airport. At this moment,
I have an unregistered, uninspected car in my garage. When
I need the spot, I drive it onto the grass.

In all those circumstances, the issues are whether you have the
consent of the property owner and, if you want to be insured,
that you meet the requirements of your insurer.

So to treat guns like cars, those would be the only requirements
for ownership, carry, and use of firearms on private property.


-- David.