11.24.2014  |   | Subscribe  | Contact us

All News & Blogs

E-mail Alerts

A carrying permit could solve our gun argument


Date published: 1/24/2013

Gun control is again taking center stage after the senseless shootings in Connecticut and other places. This time, there is talk of banning assault weapons and 30-round magazines.

I do not belong to the NRA but possess guns for recreational purposes. I believe in people's constitutional right to possess firearms and to use them for legal purposes.

I also support the position that people, not guns, cause deaths. Restricting sales of so-called assault weapons and reducing the amount of ammunition in magazines does not make sense. No, the answer is in keeping those who would misuse a firearm from obtaining one.

My suggestion would be to have anyone owning a firearm to get a carrying permit somewhat like the concealed-weapon permit now issued by Virginia. To get such a permit, one must fill out a questionnaire and sign under oath that he or she is not excluded by law from owning a firearm. The form also states where a firearm is not permitted. The form is then sent to the Virginia State Police for a background check, and signed by a judge. The permit does not specify the type of firearm nor require a firearm to be registered. The permit is valid in all states and territories of the United States.

I have not seen that the NRA or other organizations object to this sort of permit.

Why not require insurance in case the unlawful or inadvertent discharge of a firearm causes personal injury or destruction of property? Insurance is required for driving. We impose criminal penalties on drunken drivers when they are involved in traffic accidents (which far outweigh the number of deaths caused by firearms). This is because drivers, not automobiles, cause accidents. Should we not use the same sense when it comes to firearms?

William James Logan Jr.

Locust Grove