The licensing debate is not about the right to own a firearm; it’s about responsible gun ownership, about safety, and about law enforcement’s ability to revoke the license of someone who becomes a danger to themselves or others. Additionally, a licensing system will ensure that gunowners understand their own states’ laws, from the regulations governing the carrying of concealed weapons to the responsibility for keeping loaded guns away from children.
January 28, 2000
STATEMENT OF SARAH BRADY RE: PRESIDENT CLINTON’S LICENSING INITIATIVE
[If a licensing scheme would “ensure that gunowners understand their own states’ laws” and presumably “preventing gun violence” then perhaps the government could license recreational drug (including cigarettes and alcohol) users and “revoke the licenses of someone who becomes a danger to themselves or others”. Or maybe licensing homosexuals, Catholic priests, and/or Muslims. Never mind that the right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right and (probably) cannot be subject to a license while recreational drug use is not a specifically enumerated right.
Once the concept of licensing drug users proves its worth then we can talk about how effective licensing might be when applied to firearms. Don’t forget to do the arithmetic before you bring the topic up with me.—Joe]