California Commercial Driver Proficiency: Fill & Download for Free

Several possibilities, depending on where you live. I’m going to assume the US, which in itself may be a dubious assertion, and even if true, there’s a fairly wide spectrum of gun laws that would guide the answer.Among the possibilities for why you cannot obtain a “gun license”:Your state does not have nor require a license for gun ownership or carry. The majority of states do not require any explicit license or permit prior to purchasing a gun or that must be actively maintained while owning it. These states only require a background check at time of sale. About 15 states do not require any special permit to carry that firearm in plain view (called “open carry”) though they do require a permit to carry that firearm hidden under clothing or in a bag or pack (“concealed carry”). Something like 12 or 13 states require a permit for either open or concealed carry, and usually the same permit allows both. I understand that as of 2019, 16 states do not require a permit for any mode of firearm carry, open or concealed. 15 of these “Constitutional Carry” states that require no permit for any carry mode still have a permitting process that residents can use to travel to other states where a permit is required for some form of carry (“reciprocity”; it’s not universal but outside coastal areas it’s as good as), however Vermont has been a “Constitutional Carry” state since it ratified the US Constitution, and has not to date had any permitting process for any mode of carry.You are Federally barred from purchase, ownership or possession of a firearm. The most common criteria of permits for ownership or carry, where permits exist, is that you be able to lawfully own a firearm in the first place. Under Federal law, this means that you:are a legal long-term resident or citizen of the United States (you cannot buy a firearm on a migrant worker or tourist visa, if your visa has expired or you never had one, or if you have ever officially renounced your US citizenship),do not have a disqualifying criminal conviction (any felony, or any crime of domestic violence),are not under warrant or indictment for such a crime,are not the subject of a judicial protective order restraining your contact with one or more other people or barring entry to a location,are not a fugitive from justice (no arrest warrants outstanding nor any bench warrants for a failure to appear in court),have not been judged to be mentally incompetent nor ever been committed involuntarily to a mental institution (court-ordered inpatient rehab counts), andare not an unlawful user of marijuana or narcotics (several criteria used in this determination; some states bar firearms ownership by medical marijuana cardholders, while convictions for drug-related offenses within a set timeframe commonly qualify).You do not meet other objectively-defined criteria for a firearms permit. Beyond not being Federally prohibited, states have significant variation in their requirements for applying for an ownership or carry permit.Most states require a minimum time of residency in the state either in absolute terms (you must have lived in the state for the last X months) or on an annual basis (at least X months or days of the year are spent in the state).About half of states require an education course on topics of safe gun handling, laws concerning weapons carry and use of deadly force, and tactics for conflict resolution. These can be State-administered programs of licensed instructors giving classes at police facilities or commercial gun ranges, or they can be fulfilled by more general classes in gun safety and proficiency given by recognized gun training groups including the NRA.Most states with an education requirement further require a proficiency demonstration, ranging in difficulty from a simple demonstration of loading, chambering, aiming, firing and clearing a handgun, up through a course of fire involving timed strings of shots fired at targets at increasing distances. Texas, stereotypically gun-friendly, has the strictest practical test I’m aware of in the country, requiring 50 shots to be fired in timed strings of between one and five shots, at distances of 3, 7 and 15 yards, with a passing minimum of 70% of available points (5 points for hits within the primary scoring ring, 4 within the secondary scoring ring and 3 anywhere else on the human silhouette of the target). It’s easy enough with a little practice, but people do legitimately fail it, and others are disqualified for displays of unsafe handling during the test.A few states require that applicants be up to date on any State-regulated financial obligations, including court fines/traffic tickets, alimony/child support, property and income taxes etc. This is commonly required for any State-issued license including driver licenses and professional or trade certifications, as an incentive against “scofflaws”.You do not meet subjectively-defined criteria for a firearms permit, such as demonstrating “good cause”. This general term is used as a blanket for the permitting criteria of 8 states, which basically allow the permitting authority (police, permit board, local JP or county court judge etc) to approve or deny permits at their discretion, requiring the applicant to somehow convince the permitting authority that they should approve it. This usually involves demonstrating that you have “good cause” to want to carry a firearm, that you need for a permit is more specific and compelling than the “ordinary desire for self defense among the gun-owning public”.While 49 of 50 states (excepting Vermont which doesn’t require any permit) and the District of Columbia have some form of carry permitting, some of the 8 states currently counted as “may-issue” based on statute law are in fact “no-issue” based on case law and regulatory policy, holding that only those whose need for a gun is tied to employment (law enforcement, private security, armored car service) have “good cause” for a permit, and thus the carry permit is not available to the average civilian as it is in most jurisdictions. Just such a permitting policy is under legal challenge in Hawaii, where permits for any mode of carry are granted only for employment reasons or on “exceptional basis”, and in fact Hawaii has never granted a carry permit to someone not in law enforcement or professional security under any circumstances. Carry permits in New Jersey, New York City and major cities of California have a similar official policy that “there is no cause good enough” for the permitting authority to approve an application, generally resulting in permits being granted only to those with enough wealth, fame and political power within the jurisdiction of the permitting authority to make life very difficult for those approving permits if they were to deny the application.

SHORT SUMMARYEnglish Dialects were never “national” or uniform until universal education and until audio communication technology. When people born, lived and died in the same place, when travel was economically and practically a privilege and when most were illiterate, there were an infinite fabric of dialectical variation; you understood your nearby villager much more easily than the visitor from hundreds of miles distance.There never has been convergence to a single British English dialect, nor even a majority one. RP is the elite dialect of the 1% of Britons, but the most spoken “dialect” is that of the 14% of Britons around London, Estuary English. The only “national” or “non region, non socio-cultural” British English is what I call “network BBC English”, a neutral, clearly enunciated, formal manner of speech that Britons would tend to affect when outside their socio-linguistic group. As the medium character in the move “Ghost” put it, “I speak two languages, Black and White English.”In contrast, there has been an emergence of a national American dialect. The US has a different relationship to English language. From a mere 2 million souls, it grew and integrated many millions more in the 19th and 20th Centuries - most of whom were not English speakers, and many of whom were illiterate even in their native vernacular. Until the advent of universal education in the 20th Century, first and second generation Americans often lived in social and geographic isolation; only the generations educated in the US (public policy only in the 20th Century) learned English formally. So, unlike Britain, for the vast majority of non-British (or Irish) immigrants, there was no region-association of dialect, and the English taught in public schools was not region-specific. Despite the vast distances between Americans, there is constant exposure to audio-visual programs that usually employ a “network English” that newsreaders may have to perfect in “accent reduction” sessions. The closest native regional US accent to the American spoken in and around Iowa. The trend is most pronounced with “blockbuster” productions that are expected to have an international viewership - so “slang” and country-specific inferences are kept to a minimum. That is the why science-fiction films and TV uses almost documentary English!The vernacular of Americans and Britons drifted apart from about 1750 to 1900, but then the drift may have slowed by the 21st Century. Mass media technologies allowing many/all to hear “standard” speech (radio, gramophone, film, TV, Internet) slowed the drift after about a century of separate development. For “The Expanse” afficionados among us, this phenomenon of “drift” is incorporated into the dialogue of the “Belters” (colonists of the outer belt of the Solar System) that differs from the English of Martian colonists to the standard English on Earth. (It’s highly unlikely, unless the “Belters” are largely illiterate and deprived of access to audio-visual media with Earth in future).As of the 1960’s, I think there is an increasing tendency of convergence of English, or more accurately, adoption of American English patterns. Post WWII Pax Americana, the dominance of the US economically, militarily and in entertainment media, cemented by the Internet media, has essentially led to convergence in terms, if not pronunciation. The most evident example is the British adopting, against all etymological reason, the American misuse of the word “billion” to mean 10 to the 9th power (one thousand million). The SI (Metric System) to which the US had signed up but not fully adopted, denotes the term as “milliard”, a rarely heard word among lay people until the 1960s, usually in financial circles. In every language but English, “billion” meant 10 to the power of 12 (one million million). Young Britons probably never have heard that “milliard” was the correct British term until the 1960’s or 1970’s.I’ve also noticed that the American vernacular cessation of “whom”, and even confusion over the use of “each other” versus “one another” has spread to Britishers and even Australians, a world away but a millisecond in virtual terms.Most fans of American shows know that “hitting it out of the ballpark” means performing exceptionally from Pakistan to Malaysia. However, the reverse isn’t true. It seems that the “convergence” has been only towards the US vernacular.Writing Divergence hasn’t Much Occurred. Well before that, the printed word kept English script roughly stable as written language is for all to examine and for publishers to “define” a common lexicon and style rules. Scholars from Malaysia to the Outer Hebrides would be able to read English from anywhere in the world in academia. There are minute differences in spelling convention (e.g. “color” vs. “colour”; “skeptic” vs. “scaptic”; “esthetic” vs. “aesthetic”; “fetal” vs. “foetal”…), now of which hinder mutual comprehension.No Mechanism to Revise/Update English spelling and record shift in meaning and context -> Stuck with late 17th Century spelling. However, there has never been an authoritative “linguistic regulator” of any variety of English. As a result, there is no common mechanism for rigorous revision of English spelling (writing or transcription) since the 17th Century. That means that both US and UK spoken versions of English are increasingly decoupled from the written word/spelling that is no longer a 100% reliable as to pronunciation. It makes learning English speech very challenging.HISTORY AND BACKGROUND (WHY and HOW?)Modern English is the descendant of a colloquial tongue of illiterate people exposes to multiple influences. It inherits from the W. Germanic vernacular spoken on both sides of the North Sea between Britain and what is now Denmark, Netherlands and Belgium, in what is mis-termed “Old English” (but pre 12th Century, England DID NOT exist, so why is this North Sea vernacular called “Old English”?) + precursor French dialects (11th-15th Century when France as we know it DID NOT exist either) + Latin-source words (15th Century to today in scientific, legal, philosophical and other fields). Here’s a very truncated timeline.Pre-Roman to 7th Century. (King Arthur and Round Table era). Britonnic (Celtic dialects) refers to the vernacular in Britain, although the rulers and “nobles” were probably educated with Latin and/or Greek in writing.Although the Romans took over Britannia for a 4 centuries, they were progressively expelled/withdrew between the 4th-5th AD Centuries. The populace was Celtic and the collective name of the vernacular dialects was “Britonnic” The legend of “King Arthur” is a Celtic legend, so when films portray King Arthur as speaking in English, it is not only anachronistic (England did not exist at the time) but culturally inaccurate - Welsh folklore has this fictional character that united the Celtic tribes against the invading Germanics across the North Sea or the Picts from the north.7th-11th Centuries. Coastal NW Germanic (aka “Old English”) is vernacular of Continental invaders and spoken on both sides of the North Sea.Poor “King Arthur” (symbol of Celtic Britain) whose desire to keep the Germanics/Nordics out failed and the Celtic Brittonics were either subjugated or pushed west to Cornwall, Wales or Ireland. The language of the rulers in the small kingdoms in Britain varied according to origins - Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Viking… It seems most unlikely that a population of perhaps 1.5 million Celts with 100k “Saxon invaders” led to adoption of NW Germanic dialects (“Old English”) by Celts without a written language or a means of universal education. The closest living language to “Old English” is West Frisian. There are some transcriptions of those dialects, famously in the Tale of Grendel, set, not in Britain, but in Scandinavia.Truth may well be that most Celtic Britons and Germanic invaders/immigrants were illiterate, uneducated (since only Latin and Greek used a written languages at the time in Europe) and, if they were not in contact with the rulers, continued on their way of life and language. However, there is precious little record of those vernacular languages.11th-15th Centuries. Vernacular around London shifts from “Old-English” (Germanic) —-> Middle English (colloquial Germano-Latinate hybrid)That all changed when the “Francophone” Normans took over the monarchy in London and gradually took over what is now known as England today. Ironically, the Normans’ ancestors had included Vikings who had invaded what would be called Normandy (Land of Norse Men) in the 9th Century! It would be as bizarre as a contingent of mercenaries of Hispanic origin (but not Hispanophone) sent from the southwest USA to take over Venezuela, when both territories had been “hispanified” by force from Spanish conquistadores in previous centuries.With the monarch in London speaking as first language a version of “French” (or a precursor dialect of French like Ancient Norman, Langue d’Oil, Gallo-Roman…) and subjects being mostly (historian call upon us to assume) illiterate Germanic (Old English) speakers, the vernacular combining the two formed by the 12th Century as “Middle English” By the time of Richard of Lionheart (a francophone Plantagenet of the late 12th Century), the royal family was still primarily francophone but had probably also learned the Middle English vernacular to command the “Saxon” nobles and subjects. (It seem strange that only one invading tribe gave is name to “England” or “land of the AEngels, but the collective term for the English in the Middle Ages was “Saxon”; what happened to the Jutlanders, and why were the Aengels allowed to name the conquered territory? Jutengelsaxony would be more etymologically accurateAfter the Plantagenets / Lancasters, branches of the francophone dynasty based in London, had their claims on Continental lands rejected by their “cousins”, the Valois, they fell out. So, began the beginning of the “English-French” love-hate history AND the beginning of England and France as national identities. The Plantagenets/Lancasters were the “Anglois” and the Valois were the “Francois”, both branches of Continental royal families and both primarily francophone.Joan of Arc is the symbol of the victory of the Valois over the London based cousins.. Truth be told, it was probably a matter of survival. England’s population had been decimated by The Black Plague from 4.5 to perhaps 2 million, while France’s went down from perhaps 17 million to 12 million.Effect of The Plague on England’s Population15th-17th Centuries. Middle English —→ Early Modern EnglishHowever, from the 15th Century until the 17th Century, the England-based royal family learned French, a) it has become the lingua franca between European royal families and increasingly standardized and b) intermarriage with suitable Catholic spouses often meant that at least one parent was Francophone, or had a Francophone attendant.The only written form of language for official documents had been Latin, to which French Legal also was added.Other than the administrators’ “Chancery Standard” for laws, edicts and official promulgations, there was no standard transcription of English and certainly no standard dialect of speech. However a series of phenomena changed that gradually:Growing Influence of Parliament/English Nobles (“Saxons”). With the dramatic shortage of manpower due to the Black Plague, the Saxon nobles claimed increasing power from the Crown. Rulers now became proficient in the Middle English dialects of the day - but it was still the language of the subjects. So, King Richard Lionheart, Francophone, probably had to learn to speak the people’s vernacular as well. Eventually, a semi-official translation from Latin/French into vernacular was created, the Chancery Standard; it is akin to laws in English being “translated” into a pidgin spoken language for distribution to village leaders throughout Papua New Guinea who are literate. Eventually, pleading in the courts in vernacular English became an option instead of Latin or French Legal.Printing technology. For the first time, it was feasible for a written notice to be read far and wide in a nation. It took someone who was literate to read it out but it meant that the speed of communication one-to-many greatly accelerated. So, publishers informally agreed to a set of common “rules” so that newsletters could be printed with a shared lexicon.Protestantism replacing Catholicism. Henry VIII’s desire to divorce led to splitting with The Vatican, encouraged by Parliament. Tellingly, by the Act of 1534, Henry VIII declared he was to be the head of the Church in England; then, in 1535, the first translation of the Bible into vernacular English was printed. That was a slap in the face of The Vatican that had only used Bibles in Ecclesiastical Latin, “interpreted” by its clergy. The beginning of a commonly used form of written English began, staring with “Chancery Standard” the court administrators attempts to express royal acts and edicts in a form that English commoners could understand.England’s Royals Decreasingly Romanic and increasingly Germanic. Since spouses of English monarchs as of Henry VIII were to be Protestant, they became increasingly from Protestant Europe - mainly from the many Germanic states. With each generation, the caregivers of royal offspring became decreasingly francophone. By the time of Victoria, most of the English Royal Family was of Germanic ascendancy; Queen Victoria’s mother was German, her husband/cousin was German and so her offspring were 75% German, at least. Their family name was Saxe Coburg Gotha, “changed” in WWI. How very odd, the dynasty symbolizing of English patriotism largely descendants of foreign immigrants! I now realize that European Royal Families are managed like commercial Football Clubs that have a nominal city association but the players have no national or regional affiliation!17th Century French Cultural-Linguistic Pre-eminence. The Renaissance in France, the most populous and rich country in Europe and the adoption of its language, now a formal written form, led to French becoming THE language of European nobles and international treaties, displacing Latin. Cardinal Richelieu established the world first linguistic regulator of a national language with the 1635 establishment of the Academie Francaise. The English monarchs’ multigenerational feud with their Continental cousins came to a head and spurred the complete replacement of Latin and French legal by a written form of English by Act of 1730.1707. Merger with Scotland. At a time that Britain was spreading its Colonial arms, merging with Scotland led to Presbyterians’ access to international “colonies” in the Americas. The Presbyterian version of Protestantism focuses on having individuals interpret the Bible on a personal basis; that implied that the faithful HAD TO BE LITERATE. The literacy-driven Scots were probably largely the drivers for basic education in the colonies (not the Colonies). Colonies in N. America where British emigrants settled and reproduced - not “Colonies” like India where it was more of a vassal state than a place for emigrants.Rivalry with French led to Legal Adoption of Modern English. 1730 Proceedings in Courts of Justice Act. This formally made English in an official legal written medium at the time as the obligatory legal language in the Courts.18th Century to TodayVernacular DriftEnglish remains a “Descriptive Language” with no common regulator while French and most major languages today have linguistic regulators (Prescriptive Languages). It means that the vernacular or speech dialects of English have no authoritative rudder. However, the written form, by virtue of mass media and universal education, has maintained a high degree of commonality across the Anglosphere.Vernacular speech “drifts” over time. Those with a linguistic regulator have their “standard” revised over the centuries; those without “make do”.English has “made done” since its first transcription in the late 16th-17th Centuries, when authors like Shakespeare PHONETICALLY had transcribed the vernacular encountered in London and Stratford (i.e. close to London) in their writings that were subsequently published. However, lacking a “regulator”, English spelling has become unpredictably decoupled from prevailing “vernacular” or speech/pronunciation, especialy as most people were illiterate until the 20th Century.This meant that spoken English, lacking a medium to convey standard speech/pronunciation, naturally drifted apart if there was also a geographic separation. So the English spoken in the early 18th Century American Colonies may well have been very similar to the dialects of then contemporary British people, but there was no mechanism to keep their speech or vernacular in step - UNTIL the technology of mass audio, and then visual, media.Audio and Audiovisual Technologies as of late 19th CenturyThe advent of the radio, the gramophone and movies, then TV and Internet, has almost stopped the rate of drift between varieties of English. At least, General American and, to a lesser extent, RP from England, by virtue of technology is now understood around the world. From a Jamaican to a Faroese to a Cypriot to a Malaysian, those two standard dialects are heard often and generally understood.Comment - US Constitution - The pitfalls of Interpreting 18th Century English by non-historical legal scholars.The lack of an authoritative or common body that records the precise meaning and connotation of words over time means that interpretation of an old text in English becomes increasingly inaccurate over time.The US Constitution was drafted in the late 18th Century English using words that had connotations relevant to its time and place. Faithfully understanding the intent of the authors would mean being a linguistic historian as words have changed implication. Yet, lacking a regulator means that the Constitution becomes increasingly subject to imperfect interpretation the older it becomes. It has become sclerotic, immutable and only “Amendments” have fashioned elements to reflect different realities to that time.In comparison, the French Constitution, drafted about the same time as the US’, is now in its 5th Version. The intent of the drafters is much clearer and even the intent of previous version since there is an official record of what words meant at every point in history since 1635.There is a great difference in realities since the late 18th Century. For exampleUSA 1789: The 13 American Colonies had about 4.5 million people, only some 330k to 500k would be allowed to vote (male, taxpayer, landowner…).The “State” referred to Great Britain!;The “People” referred to the privileged minority of votersUSA 2020 . There are now about 4 times more “States” and +350 million citizens. of which 250 million are of voting age.In Modern US English, the words have different connotations from those of late 18th Century:“State” refers to the USA“People” refers to the 250 million or so registered adult citizen from most walks of life.There is no way that the governmental provisions conceived by a group representing no more than a small city today, in a pre-Industrial era when most people were illiterate, could rationally be suitable for a government of more than 250–700 times the population in 4 times the number of States.The procedures to change or amend are so difficult (3/4’s ratification by States) have made the US Constitution (i.e. from 8 Senators in 1800 to 34 Senators in 2020) virtually locked in time, almost etched in rock..Today, a State with 0.5 million (Wyoming) has the same Constitutional weight as a State with 40 million, there is inbuilt immobility in the Constitution that risks undermining the foundations of the democratic principle of “each vote has equal weight”; the reality is that a citizen’s vote on a Constitutional matter in Wyoming is 80 times more potent than one in California.The next phenomenon is global mobility and the huge US Expatriate population. The Constitution could not have foreseen that some 8–12 million Americans are “Stateless” in that they are resident in other countries BUT are not given a district or caucus to represent their interest. That means that a population that is larger than all but 5 to 7 US States has no effective representation. This is the result of being obliged to vote in the last physical address of registration in the US; expatriates are a minority of a State’s population and have had legislation that makes their life an administrative minefield with the passage of FATCA, for example.

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.