Networks of licensed shooters ... denying access to [sic bad] individuals

[Sal Picante]

I thought this was kinda interesting... There are blacklists in USPSA and IDPA. We have a blacklist in the region. People on the list cannot shoot a competition...

https://github.com/jonstokes/shooter...er/proposal.md

"The basic idea is to have gun owners vouch for other gun owners’ fitness to handle and use guns, and to incentivize those people to evaluate each other carefully by forcing them to have skin in the game. In this way, we can build up and maintain networks of licensed shooters whose experience of gun ownership is relatively frictionless—no arbitrary rules about barrel length or whether an item is a “stock” or an “arm brace”, and no extra paperwork or waiting periods—while denying access to firearms to individuals who can’t join such a network and remain a member in good standing."

[RoyGBiv]

Possibly one the worst ideas ever postulated.

Just what I want, some derpy dude deciding whether I can enjoy my Natural Right to self defense.
The Founders did not want basic rights decided by any kind of democratic process. Wisdom.

[RJ]

"The basic idea is to have gun owners vouch for other gun owners’ "

I see a problem right at the start...

[Totem Polar]

re·tard·ed
rəˈtärdəd/
adjective

*informal offensive
very foolish or stupid.
"in retrospect, it was a totally retarded idea"

[Peally]

Makes sense for IDPA/USPSA if they need to prevent a potentially dangerous or toxic person that's otherwise completely law abiding from being associated with them (basically ban hammering assholes that can't follow rules and be polite).

Organizations are not nations. Stupid as fuck is putting it lightly for this proposal. Fuck. That. Guy.

[23JAZ]

Really!? The word FUCKTARD comes to mind.

Weapon registration

Every licensed shooter is required to register all of his/her guns with the network, by serial number.

Really?! Fucking idiot!

[BehindBlueI's]

At least in the US there's this neat thing called "due process" that is required to deny someone their rights, and it doesn't rely on being popular or holding popular opinions. If you look at our history with civil rights, the unpopular are generally the ones that need the most protection. This would simply turn into another way to deny rights based on race, religion, or political beliefs.

[Totem Polar]

At least in the US there's this neat thing called "due process" that is required to deny someone their rights, and it doesn't rely on being popular or holding popular opinions. If you look at our history with civil rights, the unpopular are generally the ones that need the most protection. This would simply turn into another way to deny rights based on race, religion, or political beliefs.

Absolutely. And that's just for starters:

"In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely."
-Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy

It's not even like this idea would go to shit; it started there, and would be destined to just get worse with remarkable rapidity. Not just no, but F no.

[Chance]

Right. Not like people can have hidden lives, or anything.

Finally, it has been my experience that gun owners of all stripes tend to agree that certain people just shouldn’t have guns: people with violent pasts, people who are embedded in known criminal networks (i.e. gangs, terrorist cells), loners who have nothing to lose, and various other folks who are likely to misuse firearms. The problem is identifying these folks.

And this is going to stop criminals from doing what they're doing now... how?

The basic shooter control framework is that the government licenses “shooter networks”, and shooter networks license individual shooters. (Yep, this is modeled on how the web handles SSL certificates.) I say “shooter” here, because I’m not talking about gun ownership—I’m talking about who can legally touch and handle a firearm.

Right. Because it's not like networks of criminals can "incentivize" officials to do something corrupt, or anything.

A shooter network can be any group of five people aged 18 or older who get together for the purpose of forming a network — geography and other factors are irrelevant.

How do you know if they are, and will remain, competent, if they're brand new?

Your very first network membership has no waiting period for licensure. If your membership is approved, then licensure is immediate that one time. (This allows brand new shooters, or even folks who are trying to figure out if this is something they want to do, to pick up a gun and begin practicing with it.)

What. The. Fuck.

If you’re caught touching a firearm without a license, it’s a felony. This means that if you lose your license, you don’t have to surrender your firearms — you just can’t touch them without committing a felony. Obviously, there’s no way to know what people are doing inside of their own home, but someone who loses their license effectively loses their right to use a gun in defense of their home or person, and to shoot socially.

So if someone else commits a crime, you lose your right to your own firearms?

If a licensed shooter is convicted of a crime involving a gun, then the network that they were a member of at the time the crime was committed is automatically disbanded, and all of the licenses that network has issued are immediately invalidated.

So if no one wants to hang out with you, you can't touch your own firearms. Got it.

If at any point the number of members in the network drops below 5 for any reason, the network is disbanded and all the licenses it has issued are invalidated.

I can't go on. I just can't.

[PNWTO]

"The basic idea is to have gun owners vouch for other gun owners’ fitness to handle and use guns..."

Yeah, I've caused enough butthurt in certain circles I probably wouldn't be allowed a super soaker...

I can see this being used to quickly eliminate the heretical as seen by the overly zealous.