Arkansas Lien Waiver: Fill & Download for Free

The Top Forms based on popularity for 2019 is:Small Business Legal FormsRelease Of LiabilityReceipt TemplateBill Of LadingEmployee HandbookEmployment ContractEmployment Verification LetterHold Harmless AgreementMemorandum Of UnderstandingNon Compete AgreementFirearm Bill Of SaleLand ContractResumeDurable Power Of AttorneyConstruction ContractCover LetterFax Cover SheetArticles Of IncorporationBoat Bill Of SaleConsignment AgreementCorporate BylawsCorporate MinutesExecutive Summary TemplateIncome StatementIndependent Contractor AgreementLetter Of AgreementLetter Of IntentMechanics LienNon Disclosure AgreementNon Profit BylawsPartnership AgreementPurchase OrderResignation LetterScope Of WorkTerms Of ServiceVehicle Bill Of SalePersonal Financial StatementPower Of AttorneyPurchase AgreementContract For DeedGrant DeedQuit Claim DeedWarranty DeedBalance SheetPay StubSocial Security Card ApplicationFree Certificates Of AppreciationTexas Non Disclosure AgreementOhio Quit Claim DeedLimited Power Of AttorneyFlorida Power Of AttorneyGeorgia Quit Claim DeedModel Release FormBusiness ProposalTexas Power Of AttorneyVirginia Bill Of SaleColorado Quit Claim DeedTexas Quit Claim DeedTennessee Bill Of SaleLien WaiverJob Offer LetterBill Of SaleFlorida Bill Of SaleAlabama bill Of SaleOregon Bill Of SaleCalifornia Bill Of SaleCalifornia Non Disclosure AgreementFlorida Quit Claim DeedMassachusetts Bill Of SaleArizona Bill Of SaleIllinois Bill Of SaleMissouri Bill Of SaleColorado Bill Of SaleNorth Carolina Bill Of SaleSouth Carolina Bill Of SaleWashington Bill Of SaleMichigan Bill Of SaleMichigan Quit Claim DeedArizona Quit Claim DeedFlorida Non Compete AgreementCommission AgreementConsignment ContractEmployee Evaluation FormWaiverJob ApplicationKansas Bill Of SaleArkansas Bill Of SaleProfit And Loss StatementPersonal Legal FormsBank Statement TemplateHospital Discharge PapersInvoiceGuardianship FormsLast Will And TestamentLiving WillMedical ConsentAffidavitLetter Of RecommendationPromissory NoteLast Will And Testament BlankPhoto ReleaseCodicilPrenuptial AgreementAffidavit Of Small EstateCease And Desist Slander And Libel LetterDeath Certificate RequestCrypto Last Will And TestamentOhio Last Will And TestamentPennsylvania Last Will And TestamentVirginia Living WillDo Not Resuscitate OrderDaycare ContractFlorida Living WillOhio Living WillPennsylvania Living WillTexas Last Will And TestamentMedical Power Of AttorneyFlorida Last Will And TestamentCalifornia Living WillNorth Carolina Last Will And TestamentTexas Living WillPennsylvania Last Will And TestamentCalifornia Last Will And TestamentReal Estate FormsEviction NoticeMonth To Month Lease AgreementRental ApplicationRent ReceiptSublease AgreementTriple Net Lease AgreementPennsylvania Lease AgreementLease AgreementRoommate AgreementTexas Eviction NoticeCalifornia Lease AgreementCalifornia Rental ApplicationCommercial Lease AgreementNorth Carolina Lease AgreementNew York Lease AgreementGeorgia Lease AgreementVirginia Lease AgreementNew Jersey Lease AgreementMichigan Lease AgreementTax FormsHCFA-1500DS 11W3DA 31929SF 15W210961099 Int1099 MiscSSA 561 U2DA 4856IRS 4506 TW2COF 306W41040 ESAIA Document A305CBP Form 6059BDA 638DA 705DA 2823DA Form 3433-1DA 4187DD 1172-2DD 1351-2DD 1750DS 82130-UForm 540WH 347DA Form 5513Opm Form 71Form 3949 AVa Form 21 674Va Form 10 2850cHUD 1DS 3053VA Form 26 1880Form 1120 HVA Form 21 686CVA-21-0845VA Form 21 4138W9N 400

I’m not diametrically opposed. The idea is not new, and both sides have mentioned the concept, typically failing to mention the sections of gun law that would remain unchanged but for the one thing similar to driver’s licenses that they want to implement.The foundational thing you’ll have to overcome on the pro-gun side is that the Second Amendment is an enumerated right, a “right” often defined as “something you can do without the government’s permission”. A license or permit from the government to exercise that right in the general case, without which you cannot do so (or experience a very limited version of the right) takes that right and makes it a privilege. Give, take, compromise all you want, that will be the most common “no deal” reason you will hear when it comes down to brass tacks.It’s a totally valid concern; the idea that you would require government permission to exercise a right is anathema to that very concept of a right, and leads to a very dangerous reinterpretation of the term as being something the government “allows by default” instead of the stronger meaning of something the government “has little or no legal power to deny”. Change the popular mentality to the government “allowing” gun ownership instead of “not being able to deny” same, and now the logic behind ever tighter restrictions on who the government allows to own guns leads us down the infamous “slippery slope”.My usual response to this concern is voter registration. The right to vote in free and fair public elections is the closest thing we have to an absolute right in the United States, never explicitly stated as a right in the Constitution itself, but declared as such in no fewer than four Amendments (prohibiting denial of that right based on race, gender, failure to pay poll taxes, and any age criteria other than a minimum age of 18). And yet you can’t just walk up to a polling place and vote, because it would be impossible to enforce a very basic principle of democracy, “one person, one vote”. We have to know who voted, and know that each voter is in fact entitled to their right to vote (a U.S. citizen, of proper age, who has not been legally disenfranchised for any of myriad reasons SCOTUS has upheld as constitutional).So, we register people as voters. That process, because it’s so fundamental to our system of government, is supposed to be as painless and inexpensive as possible (to the extent that no postage is charged on any mail addressed to the registrars’ offices). But it’s still required, and in many cases you can’t just get registered on Election Day itself. So, it’s a restriction designed to be as easy to overcome as possible, but it’s a restriction nonetheless, and a meaningful one as people are turned away from voting all the time for lack of it, including more than a few mistakes.So, the hair to be split here is that it isn’t “permission”, it’s “oversight”. The government isn’t allowing you to do it, it’s managing the way in which it’s done. The registration isn’t evidence of government permission, it’s proof the government has no reason to legally deny you your right.Now, we add requirements beyond “U.S. citizen, over 18 and breathing”. This is where that above split hair starts looking mighty thin. Any requirement is, fundamentally, a reason by which the government can deny you your right. The more there are, and the more the government gets to define the threshold at which they are met, the more this whole thing starts looking like a privilege and not a right. There really isn’t a good answer here that would justify universal permitting of public firearms carry, with similar practical requirements as driver’s licenses, that doesn’t concede the Second Amendment as an “elevated privilege” instead of a “fundamental right”.So, let’s leave the pro-gun side of it for a second, and look at it from the perspective of a gun control advocate. We’re going to consider a United States in which owning a gun is subject to the same laws as owning a car:Mandatory registration and annual renewal of all guns carried in public. Great, gun control advocates have wanted that for decades. Just like possession of a car is not ownership of that car, the government knows who owns and operates what cars, and collects an annual tax (for road upkeep and to pay State Troopers). The registrant must in turn be able to provide proof of title or lien showing that they own the car (secondary to the bank issuing the loan paying for it).Applied to firearms, this would not only be a comprehensive State-level DB of all guns and their owners accessible to the Feds, it would require comprehensive records of sale, with the owner required to possess a document showing the legal transfer of the firearm from the initial manufacturer through the chain of custody, and not having one is tantamount to felony theft from the last person who can prove they legally owned it.Mandatory annual safety inspection of all guns carried in public. This is an unqualified win for gun control advocates as well. Many states require cars to be inspected for presence and proper function of basic safety features required by State or Federal law for that model year, ranging from working lights, horn, wipers etc to proper tire tread depth. The parallel would be presence of working safety features of the gun required to be implemented as of a particular year of manufacture, including pin blocks, trigger latches, mag safeties etc. Older guns first manufactured prior to the requirement of a feature don’t have to have it, but this “grandfathered” status would be lost if they changed other things.These programs are popular in NY and California, except among gun owners, as they dramatically restrict the number of models of gun legal for sale in those states (in California, the number of legal models is about to be zero, as no gun manufacturer is even trying to comply with the state’s microstamping requirement and one manufacturer after another is refusing to pay the state DoJ to keep “legacy” models on the list).Liability insurance against accidental or negligent damage/bodily injury. This is the most common requirement that I hear gun control people use the “just like driving a car” argument in support of, possibly second to registration requirements. Drivers must provide “proof of financial responsibility”; either proof of liability insurance, or a sworn affidavit that the person has access to sufficient minimum reserved funds to pay damages in case of an accident. This liability does not extend to intentional illegal use of that car to cause said injury or damage.Gun control advocates seem to be in two minds about this one; it’s very commonly proposed as an additional requirement of gun ownership, but Governor Cuomo is using the full power of his office to punish the NRA for offering “concealed carry insurance”. Gun control advocates would have to make up their mind; do they want it or not?Licensing requirements including written and practical proficiency tests. You want to drive a car, you get tested on the rules of the road and in the actual operation of a car by the DMV, and in most states, new drivers (never licensed) have to take a State-approved education course. You want to carry a gun, it seems logical to require something similar; education course on firearm safety and carry laws, followed by a proficiency test, all administered by a State-approved instructor. Half the country already requires this, including very gun-friendly states like Texas, Tennessee, Arkansas, etc.“Shall-issue” permitting policies. …Ouch. Discretion in permitting, so-called “may-issue” based on “good cause” requirements, has been a cornerstone of gun control in the bluest blue states for about 30 years now at the earliest, even as other states were going shall-issue and even “constitutional carry” around them. No more. The criteria must be objectively measurable as to whether the person meets or does not meet them, with no subjective judgments allowed like whether the person has “a good enough reason” to carry a gun. “Needs-based” licenses are the exception to the rule, offered essentially as a limited waiver of requirements the driver doesn’t meet (such as age); the same would be true of gun carry licenses.Licensing criteria designed to be met by the supermajority of applicants. Another common tactic of gun control; New York (State and especially City) are infamous for licensing requirements so draconian, even besides the “good cause” requirement, that only New York’s most favored socialites and business moguls (and their private security details) need bother to apply. Try requiring driver license applicants to provide a character reference from four other people in the same county that they’ve known for 7 years agreeing they should be allowed to drive. That’s a criterion in Monroe County, NY for a State firearms permit. No longer; you sit a class, you demonstrate safe and proficient handling of a firearm, and you get the permit.Levels of licensing allowing greater access, with the basic license level granting access to the 95th percentile of available guns. A “CDL” really isn’t “commercial”, it’s just that most people who have one are professional drivers. An extra knowledge and skills test and you have one. In my state there are three levels of CDL (the Class C CDL differing from the non-commercial license by allowing hazmat transportation), and additionally you can get motorcycle endorsements. As applied to firearms licenses, the “Class C” basic license would grant access to pretty much every “Title I” firearm as defined by the NFA. A specific endorsement for “modern sporting rifles” aka “assault weapons” might be the equivalent of a motorcycle endorsement. Title II weapons other than machine guns and explosives? Class B license. MGs and “destructive devices”? Class A. All permits shall-issue, the criteria being a knowledge and skills test, with some additional criteria like drug testing and clean criminal backgrounds for higher levels.National reciprocity of permits. Licensed in one state, licensed in all. Another fairly common tenet of gun control in New England and California; not only is it difficult for residents to get that state’s permit, nobody at all from out of state can get a permit, and they can’t carry under authority of their home state’s permit. NYC doesn’t even recognize NY State permits as valid. This is in stark contrast to driver licenses, which have been valid from all 50 states in all 50 states for over 40 years.This is a situation in which you very commonly hear a very non-Democrat argument in favor of “states’ rights”; generally speaking, this has been a drumbeat of the GOP on a number of current issues from healthcare to abortion, gay marriage and Common Core education standards, but when it comes to firearm carry, all of a sudden the Republicans want national standardization of gun laws including Full Faith and Credit, while the Dems are the ones arguing for local control. Funny ol’ business, politics; you use whatever argument you can find that gets you what you want.Standardization of carry laws and signage. Right turn on red? Legal if there’s no sign against it, in all 50 states, D.C., Puerto Rico and all possessions with street traffic, except for NYC (‘cause NYC), where there must be a sign allowing RTOR. Carry of a handgun into an alcohol-selling establishment? Legal in some states (depending on the establishment and the mode of carry), not in others. “Do Not Enter” sign? Standardized across the U.S.. Signage requirements to ban carry on private property? In most states any sign to that effect, of any size and placement, is binding, while the layout and language of required signage in a few states with more stringent rules for them differ widely from state to state.This would all have to get cleaned up in order for national reciprocity to actually be meaningful, otherwise all you’d need is some common yet obscure situation with confusing signage to be illegal in one state, and visitors from another (or newly-permitted carriers within the state that have never seen or been shown this situation before) become felons without any knowledge or warning. States get some leeway, such as having total control over speed limits, but those speed limits must be prominently posted using a standard sign. It must be obvious to a gun carrier when they’re about to break the law.Nonapplicability of permitting, registration and inspection requirements on ownership or use on private property. Yep, you read that right. You do not need a driver license to buy or own a car. Not even from a dealer. You do not need to register a car every year. You do not have to get it inspected, ever. As long as you don’t operate that vehicle on public roads. Licensing, registration and inspection are concerns for the use of that car on a publicly-owned, publicly-maintained resource that is occupied by a lot of people. On your own land, the police couldn’t give a flip if the brake lights don’t work, that the State DMV’s never heard of it, or that your 14-year-old drives it daily to feed the cows. Applied to licenses, you could buy a gun, keep it in your own home loaded and ready, and carry it unloaded and cased between your home and any other private property where you have permission to have and use it, without the government having any say in the matter.Repeated, even flagrant, violations of gun laws are not a permanent disqualifier - Pulled over for 20 over the limit in a school zone? A pretty painful ticket, but that’s about it, unless you already have enough “points” (in systems that use them) from other offenses to get your license suspended, and even then that suspension is usually temporary. Carry a gun into a school? Currently, you’re a felon in most states. One offense equals lifetime prohibition. Most traffic offenses are the lowest level of misdemeanor, zero jail time and a fairly small maximum fine allowed. Most “gun laws” criminalizing possession or carry in various circumstances are gross misdemeanors if not felonies that result in immediate revocation of license if not the RKBA itself. All that would need to be rethought to make most carry restrictions the equivalent of traffic tickets.Felons not automatically disqualified. “Hol’ up”. Yeah, you heard that right too. A convicted felon can walk right out of jail, get into a car he owns or has permission to drive, and if his driver license is still current (say it was a one-year sentence) and has current insurance for liability (auto insurance companies don’t really care whether you’re in jail, only whether you can still pay their premiums), he can drive off into the sunset totally legally. He just better be back to report to his parole officer the next day. The same would apply to guns; you might not be able to get higher-tier licenses (the CDL equivalent above), but your average handgun is a walk-in, walk-out transaction the day after you get out for a felony. This is something even many gun owners say would be going too far, but if we’re talking about adopting the same mentality for carry licenses as for driver licenses, this is what shakes out.The criteria for revocation of a driver license is essentially a finding that the license holder is physically or mentally incapable of safely and responsibly operating a motor vehicle in accordance with all laws and ordinances. Most are medically-based due to age or degenerative disease. It takes one heckuva string of fairly major screwups for a healthy adult to lose their license permanently. Robbed a store at knifepoint? Says nothing about your ability to handle a gun, one way or the other, so it’s not a disqualifier (except currently it is). Defrauded millions of people out of billions of dollars in retirement savings? Doesn’t mean you can’t handle a gun safely and responsibly (and, ironically enough, securities and financial felonies don’t count for purposes of the Federal “felon in possession” laws as it is, so Jeff Skilling, about to be released from Federal prison where he was serving felony time for his part in the Enron fraud, can walk right into a gun store and walk out with a new handgun). You’d need to repeatedly demonstrate that you cannot be trusted with a firearm in order to lose that right.As I’ve hopefully illustrated, there’s quite a bit to this basic idea for both camps not to like. In addition to the basic “permits for a right” cognitive dissonance, gun owners would be putting up with registration, records of sale, loss of “constitutional carry”, additional permitting requirements above what exist in many states, possible tiered licensing with some guns requiring additional knowledge and skills testing, and “safe model lists” mandating feature sets (with the caveats that firearms designed and introduced prior to the year a feature is mandated are never required to have the feature, and that the feature has to already be proven viable if not in wide use before it’s mandated). Gun control advocates would, in turn, be forced to largely give up every other measure they’ve devised in about the last 35 years, including high levels of discretion in permitting and carry laws, non-reciprocity, purchase permits/owner IDs, automatic disqualifiers to ownership, “one-strike” felony convictions for nonviolent gun law violations, and outright bans on common weapons and accessories either because they have common functional or cosmetic features, or because they don’t have features not generally available in the market.“Okay, so let’s not try to make it exactly like car ownership…” Yeah. That’s commonly called “backpedaling”. Pretty much everything gun rights advocates would like about this, gun control advocates would put into the “not exactly” category, and vice versa. Now it’s not “just like driver’s licenses”, we’re back to “we should do these things that in themselves look like things we do for drivers, while ignoring what we already do to gun owners that no car owner would put up with”. Implementing the check while ignoring the balance.So the argument ultimately falls flat, except as a model for some level of actual compromise. Gun control advocates want mandatory licensing? It better be shall-issue and with national reciprocity. Gun control advocates want registration and insurance? Gun rights advocates will demand ironclad proactive protections on ownership and possession (police can’t just go impound all Toyota Corollas because 238 House Reps, 60 Senators and the President don’t like them), reduction of penalties for nonviolent gun law violation and reform of “gun-free zone” laws. Gun control advocates want to restrict access to semi-automatic rifles? They’ll have to agree to reopen the machine gun registry, repeal or dramatically lower the NFA taxes and fund an ATF that can actually process the paperwork in a timely manner.This is what “compromise” looks like, folks. At this point, neither side is offering anything like it. I generally put most of the blame on gun control advocates, because they’ve historically been the ones taking way more than they give in various gun legislation attempts, but the truth is gun rights advocates are no more willing to actually compromise either; “I want my whole damn cake back” is extremely common as a pro-gun mentality, however well-founded, and it’s no more amenable to actual compromise than never-ending demands of “another bite of the cake” from the other side.