I'm all for education/safety training. Many years ago when I tested to get my BFSC card in California I was told you had to get <x> correct out of <y> questions (I forget the exact numbers), however there were a number of questions where the correct answer was so blindingly obvious that I thought getting even one of those wrong should disqualify you. So sure, make the hurdles to get a gun higher in areas where there will be a payoff.
What I have a problem with in the above is mainly the letters of reference and Dr.'s note. What if everyone you know and/or Dr. is anti-gun, or at least not pro-gun enough to want to get involved? What if they fear (rationally or otherwise) that somehow attesting that you're okay to have a firearm will get them roped into court (especially Civil) should you do something unlawful with your firearm, or even fail to secure it properly so it gets stolen then used in a crime? And Dr.s would have the added threat of malpractice suits hanging over them.
That also assumes the person actually /had/ a regular Dr. they'd been going to for years. For far too many that is not the case, for whatever reason.
I'm personally fine with most things suggested in the other threads, such as closing the private seller loophole, make education/training mandatory, mandating safe storage criteria. And having regular 'refresher' tests sounds like a promising idea. The details of all of these can be hammered out and tweaked. However I have a problem in principal with needing to get character references and a Dr.'s note to permit purchase, and can't see a way for those requirements to be tailored to remove that objection for me.
|