There is a two-step path forward to reducing guns and gun deaths in America.  It doesn’t involve legislation on firearms.  First, split the NRA into two lobbies – one for gun manufacturers and one for gun owners.  Second, (after step 1 has settled), require a license to purchase a gun and a separate license to purchase ammunition.  This would resolve a host of issues; is clearly constitutional, as licenses have already passed muster; and is supported by many gun owners, particular rural gun owners.

​

Now is the time to do this as the NRA is in disarray!

​

This two-step approach does not alienate rural voters

​

While 44% of American households admit owning a gun, it is estimated that 60% of households actually own a gun.  In rural America, almost every household has at least one gun.  When thinking of your rural voter, always keep in mind that he or she is a gun owner and most likely has never experienced a mass shooting.  In a presidential election, the way to think about this is that almost all of the voters who will actually determine the Electoral College vote are gun owners.  The approach I’m suggesting here is one that will work without alienating your Electoral College voters.  

​

The first step is to eliminate the toxic combination of gun owners with gun manufacturers.

​

Split the NRA into separate lobbying groups.

 

Think of automobiles.  No one really thinks it makes sense for automobile manufacturers and automobile owners to be in the same lobby.  Similarly, it makes no sense for gun manufacturers and gun owners to be in the same lobby – they have very divergent and contradictory interests.  

​

Gun owners couldn’t care less how many guns a gun manufacturer sells.  Gun manufacturers, on the other hand, have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to sell as many guns as possible.  Pass legislation making it illegal to lobby on behalf of both gun manufacturers and gun owners.  In other words, separate the NRA into two groups.  Patiently wait for this to take effect and settle down.  The two lobbies will quickly line up on opposite sides of various issues. 

​

Which brings me to step 2:

​

Require a license to buy a gun and one to buy ammunition.

​

Licensing solves the issues of acceptance, impromptu purchasing of a weapon, background checks, sales at gun shows, private sales, constitutionality, and pride.  It would instantly reduce gun sales and instantly reduce gun deaths.

​

I have socialized this approach with gun owners.  To date I have received only full support for this idea.  Many people already have concealed carry permits and they are comfortable with licensing – they would already have a license.  And they didn’t object to the concealed carry permit in the first place.  In fact, many are proud of it.

​

The group that would complain is gun manufacturers.  Indeed, sales would plummet if this is adopted too quickly.  In order to get this passed, I would recommend feathering out implementation so that gun manufacturers can adjust.  But at the end of the day, gun manufacturers and their employees account for a handful of votes (but provide a lot of lobbying dollars).  Gun owners account for millions of votes.  Hence the imperative to split the lobbies.  

​

Real background checks are possible with a licensing regime.

​

With a license, it would be possible to do an actual background check.  The background checks we have today are simply a felony and court order checks.  With licensing, red flag laws can be tied in to a license.  Even before complete adjudication.  To get this passed, I would make the issuance of a license virtually automatic within 30 days unless an issue is found.  And leave it up to the states to determine the extent of the background check.  Over time, if they are too lenient, political and social pressure will force them to improve their efforts.  And no age limit.  Up until age 18, a license would require the sign-off of the parent or guardian.  Farm kids often have a small-caliber gun at a young age.  I did.  And there never has been a family farm shooting.  Sure, this won’t work as well in the urban setting, but don’t throw out the possible waiting for the perfect.  It will still reduce gun deaths.

​

Licensing consolidates the background check.

​

This streamlines checks for the licensed gun shop.  They simply check to see if the license is still valid.  Just like running a driver’s license.  

​

It also solves in large part the issue of gun shows and private gun sales.  My father was in the Korean War and was also a marksman.  When he passed away, he had a collection of hundreds of guns of different types and I sold those at the typical farm auction.  With no identification at all, anyone could buy them.  It would have been no effort at all to have the auctioneer make a copy of each purchaser’s gun license upon sale.  No license (for example a felon), or an expired license, no sale.  As the seller, I certainly would have felt better.  Is this perfect?  Of course not.  But it is better than what we have now.  Let’s start with this.

​

The reason for separate gun and ammunition licenses is that there are many gun collectors out there who don’t shoot.  A gun is worthless without ammunition so a gun license can be on a much longer renewal cycle.  An ammunition license would be much shorter and potentially subject to a more thorough background check.  Canada takes this approach.  

​

Conclusion:

​

At the end of the day, eliminating certain types of weapons will not move the needle.  Most guns sold are semi-automatics and the AR-15 really is nothing special.  The AR-15 also shoots the NATO round, which is a middling caliber of ammunition.  They are just shorter and look meaner to young men who grew up playing violent video games.  They are also terrific for brandishing, even if unloaded.  Banning them, however, just reduces choice and diverts purchasers to alternatives that also have magazines and are also semi-automatics.  These alternatives also often use larger caliber rounds.  This is feel-good legislation.

​

Similarly, reducing magazine capacity just antagonizes the legitimate gun owner.  When target or skeet shooting, one goes through a clip of 10 rounds in a heartbeat.  My father was a marksman in the military and continued shooting throughout his entire life.  Competing against military marksmen and law enforcement, he was 1st in the State of Michigan several times.  He could easily go through 1,000 rounds in a day of target practice.  I should know.  I had to hand-make all of his ammunition due to cost, which included melting down lead pipes to pour into molds for the bullets.  

​

Rather than banning large magazines, a better solution is to make them part of the ammunition license.  In other words to buy a high capacity magazine perhaps you can only do so with that license, even if it requires a rider to do so.  It would allow choice yet still eliminate the impulse purchase.

​

This path is achievable.  I also suspect it helps Republicans get out of their bondage to the NRA.  While Republicans would most likely publicly oppose splitting the NRA, many would secretly favor it.  Given that dynamic, a swing vote would be much more likely.
This should be an overall win.  Gun owners will support this, even if not all.  It is constitutional.  And it instantly reduces gun sales and gun deaths.  Yet it doesn’t restrict choice in purchasing a weapon.  While not perfect, this is a win, immediately reduces gun deaths, and is a good way to go.