Firearms are not about "trust".

[RX-79G]

In using SSLs as the basis of this proposal, you are taking a system that is about trust - sharing data on a single network - and trying to apply that concept to something that couldn't be less similar.

The legal basis of firearms ownership is distrust. Distrust of the government, distrust of the neighbors. Firearms have always proven to be a leveling tool that removes some of the coercive power of governments, powerful individuals and majority groups against minorities and individuals. Firearms are both the enforcing arm of individual liberty and litmus test: In free societies adults are automatically "trusted" until they have proven otherwise. They are then trusted to vote, trusted to say responsible things and trusted to join and practice whatever faith.

This proposal basically says the liberty is a popularity contest where a type of majority (the network) has to be relied upon to decide to grant rights and freedoms to the minority (individuals). If you believe that a majority establishing which individuals can be trusted with a liberty (in this case a weapon), then it automatically follows that all liberties can and should be viewed the same way: Networks for voter registration, networks the ability to assemble, networks for the ability to make public speech.

The trust in SSL is a service provided that allows the internet to function, so it is okay with everyone that a tiny minority has established a method for producing a commodity: SSL certificates. That commodity is universally used. Gun ownership is not a commodity - the right to use a gun never leaves the individual who has it, and can never benefit anyone else but the individual.

I am saddened that intelligent people can't see the enormous gulf in the use of trust networks for the creation of transferable commodities and one used to act for and against individuals. You might as well establish a gun owning aristocracy - an ancient arms holding trust network - since you want to dispose of individual freedom as the basis for Western civilization.

[jonstokes]

I think you've fundamentally misunderstood both this proposal and the present political moment.

On the first matter, it's not possible for this to turn into some kind of arms-owning aristocracy, because any group of 5 people of the age of majority who can pass a background check can come together to form a network. That is just not a very high bar, and it's in no way conducive to the development of an arms-owning elite.

To the second point, we are in a moment where lone wolf wackos are taking the fruits of a half-century of American innovation in small arms, and using them to terrorize us in public spaces. The public is just not going to stand for that much longer, and if the tempo of these attacks pick up then you will lose rights.

We had better come up with a regime for vetting firearms ownership that we can all live with, because if we don't then the other side will come up with one that we cannot live with. Gun owners may be riding high right now, but this, too, shall pass. Our 2A rights would not survive a combination of a Dem congress and a string of mass casualty shooting sprees. Wake up, because that's what time it is.

On a final note, I'm from the old-school gun culture, and I can tell you that it absolutely was social. I didn't get my first gun until my dad thought I could handle it. And if you were a dangerous yahoo, you didn't get invited to the deer camp and you were otherwise socially ostracized.

The simple fact is this: nobody wants to be around a loner with a deadly weapon. If that describes you, then I'm sorry. If you don't have some sort of network of trust relations that you're embedded in, then you have no stake in a collective and therefore you have nothing really to lose. An armed individual with nothing to lose is a danger to everyone while simultaneously being not even remotely a danger to the status quo. Only an armed collective is a bulwark against tyranny. If you don't do collectives, then you weren't going to be any help anyway if the balloon goes up--go back down into your bunker and ride it out by yourself.

[mkazin]

This clearly ignores the actual current proposal. No honest reviewer would make such conclusions of being limited to a specific network.

So I have to ask what's the actual point of introducing this empty rhetoric? And why do it on a brand new anonymous account? For admitting there's a problem which needs solving and starting a conversation I find Jon admirable. This nonsensical attempt to derail it isn't.

As for its content it's historically ignorant.

In no place but recent American history could one find anyone who posits that individual freedom was the basis of Western civilization. The Magna Carta granted certain rights only to lords, and in no way did it undermine the Crown's authority. The claim is not even reasonable with regards to American civilization. Take another look at the Constitution's preamble- the primary focal point is the common, not the individual. That societal-centered method of framing law is consistent going all the way back to Hellenic Greece.

Distrust doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution or the second amendment. But it's precisely what's so damn scary about anti-government types, because armed opposition to democratic government is inherently anti-social, and not worthy of trust. Equating this as yet unspecified mode of cooperation to authoritarianism is an act of ideological fanaticism.

[RX-79G]

I don't know how this site works as far as anonymity - I created the account following the instructions. I'm the one who proposed the example of the hated minority that Jon posted.

As far as individuals go in Western culture, that concept has always existed and has just changed who it counted for: Aristocrats, then white males, then all males, then all adults. We don't hold the words of the Constitution to be invalid because they weren't initially applied to women, and we don't believe that Western Civilization ended just because of the Dark Ages. Democracy is a society of individuals, which is why all individuals had to vote in ancient Athens. And speaking more generally, most laws are about defining property ownership - which is also all about individuals.

Statistically, there aren't significantly more "wackos" doing anything that wackos were doing 100 years ago, and the stats for mass spree shootings by capita put the US behind many European countries. http://www.ijreview.com/2015/12/348197-paris-attack-claim-mass-shootings/

AR15s are less lethal than a 1920 Tommy Gun with 50 round drum mag, so this idea that there is a recent technology watershed at work is also false. What no one seems to be in a hurry to admit is that mass shooters are SO much less effectively than bombers, and maybe we are fortunate that the wackos prefer shooting people one at a time to the Timothy McVeigh way of acting out violently. Bombs don't require background checks to construct.

I don't think it has anything to do with the legality of the proposal, but America was never a land of gun clubs and social shooting. Most of rural America kept and used firearms for solo pursuits like hunting or protection. Gun clubs, shooting ranges and that kind of thing went along with the growth of cities to provide safe places for shooting. It is like saying that the "normal" way to swim is in a municipal swimming pool. While shooting may be social for you and your family, I have personally known many hunters that taught themselves and always hunt alone. It is not strange.

"No one wants to be around a loner with a deadly weapon." No one wants to be around a loner, is what the core of the statement means. I do not understand licensing prejudice, and words like "loner" is prejudicial, just like words about race or religion. You seek to disenfranchise anyone who doesn't fit into your minimum 5 person litmus test of "socially compatible", and whether that is for guns or something else, I find it monstrous. It reminds me of when promiscuous women were treated as mentally ill.

[jonstokes]

"No one wants to be around a loner with a deadly weapon." No one wants to be around a loner, is what the core of the statement means. I do not understand licensing prejudice, and words like "loner" is prejudicial, just like words about race or religion. You seek to disenfranchise anyone who doesn't fit into your minimum 5 person litmus test of "socially compatible", and whether that is for guns or something else, I find it monstrous. It reminds me of when promiscuous women were treated as mentally ill.

I just don't buy this analogy or line of argumentation, at all. Nonetheless, I think it's important for anyone interested this proposal (or any variant on it, however watered down) to hear it, because it's probably going to be a common objection.

Also, let me speak to this comment specifically:

You seek to disenfranchise anyone who doesn't fit into your minimum 5 person litmus test of "socially compatible"

I don't seek to "disenfranchise" or disarm anybody. Rather, I'm operating on the assumption that the status quo has a limited shelf life, and at some point something is coming that will disarm everybody. This proposal is my way of trying to preserve gun rights (and, in fact, actually expand them) for people who meet a very minimal threshold of social connectedness. The people who can't meet that threshold are screwed long-term with or without this proposal, because until you can conjure up a way to prevent armed loners from shooting into crowds then it's going to keep happening and the ice under all of us will keep getting thinner.

You may never like the idea of having to rely on other people to vouch for you, but you're going to like the alternatives that the other side proposes way less.

[RX-79G]

I can get people to vouch for ME all day long. I don't care about what I get out of a new law, but what happens to the least represented people.

You are simply proposing that a right is more palatable if it can be preserved, inequitably or not. That isn't a right, and not worth preserving.

You are also interpreting the current political maneuvering and media coverage as some sort of evidence that the general public is poised for a sea-change. It isn't - more people appreciate the usefulness of firearms now then when the 1994 Assault Weapons ban was imposed. That is why it wasn't renewed, and why in that same period CCLs became normal in the US.

All that has happened is there is another incident for both sides to point at and say - "See what happens when you arm/disarm citizens!" The status quo is preserved due to the polarity of reactions.

I appreciate you putting on your thinking cap, but for the several reasons I posted on Pistol Forum related to personal liability as well as the unconstitutional nature of making citizens their brother's keeper, this can't possibly work. It won't be seriously discussed, voted for, upheld by SCOTUS or be able to administratively function. This is pie in the sky, like a Heinlein's suffrage for veterans idea. It can't be implemented without a fundamental revolution in our government/social structure.

So I'm not worried about the proposal going anywhere - it won't. I'm concerned about people that are so blase about disenfranchisement. You are selling privilege to an egalitarian society. It doesn't matter if you think 99% percent will be able to get that privilege - it is still a violation of equal protection under the law when it is based on relationships and not blind justice.

It actually makes me feel bad for you that you view your citizenship this way.

[RX-79G]

This proposal is my way of trying to preserve gun rights (and, in fact, actually expand them) for people who meet a very minimal threshold of social connectedness

Which mass murderer wasn't connected to a political group, religious movement or family, BTW? Do you actually have any good reason to believe that "loners" - as defined by your 5 person threshold, are the problem?

[tsgsjeremy]

I can get people to vouch for ME all day long. I don't care about what I get out of a new law, but what happens to the least represented people.

Ah, now I see where you're coming from. In the original Proposal the organization was government run. Under that regime your arguments are valid because it would violate the 2A and all our individual rights. I'm opposed to such a system as well.

That's why Jon created a new version which is privately run and voluntary. Those who for whatever reason don't choose to join the network would still enjoy their 2A rights. The network is a way for us gun owners to police ourselves and keep gov't OUT of the picture as much as possible. This would require no new laws, no weakening of the 2A, no disenfranchisement, etc.

The hope is that we can weed out or identify possible bad actors by ruling out trusted gun owners. It may not be 100% effective, but it won't hurt or hamper anyone's rights either.

Re: You are also interpreting the current political maneuvering and media coverage as some sort of evidence that the general public is poised for a sea-change. It isn't - more people appreciate the usefulness of firearms now then when the 1994 Assault Weapons ban was imposed.

I have to strongly disagree with your assessment - though I hope to God you are right and I am wrong. The current crop of college aged kids are some very special snowflakes. In 5-10 years they will be out in the wild using the same tactics to agitate for gun control. And a Dem President and Congress seems likely at this point. Those two factors make me pretty pessimistic.

[RX-79G]

Where is this new version where you can have 2A rights outside the network? I can't find it.

[jonstokes]

@RX-79G click this link for a description of the new direction/version:

https://github.com/jonstokes/shootercontrol/issues/4#issuecomment-228237613

[tsgsjeremy]

I just realized that Underwriters Laboratories (UL) is a near perfect analogue for this proposal. It is a private organization and compliance is completely voluntary, yet UL enjoys near complete adoption in the electrical products industry.

[RX-79G]

UL is just like any organization that private or government organizations decide to trust. The analog to UL would be if your gun background checks went through Experian rather than the FBI. The proposal is that your background check go through 4 of your drinking buddies.

I can't imagine those favoring gun control finding much in this proposal to like.

[tsgsjeremy]

RX - You are proving to be an invaluable asset. Sincerely. The more holes you can poke the better because it forces us to think about things we may not have considered, or flesh out vague ideas. I hope you don't get tired of going round and round with us because it will ultimately make the project stronger or sink it.

OK, back to the grind :)

I actually thought about the structural difference between UL and the proposal. It may be that the monolith approach would be better than a distributed network. I'm not in love with or put off by either approach. Maybe once we get things a bit more fleshed out it would be a good idea to do an opinion poll of the different structures and include both pro and anti gunners.

On your other point about what the gun control crowd would get out of the deal, I've been kicking that around for a couple of days myself. Since the proposal is by gun people for gun people, it will naturally appeal more to gun people. I'm not really sure what gun control folks would find appealing at this point. Maybe later on in the process some things will become apparent.

But I did come up with some things to avoid so as not to poison the well with gun control folks. For starters there would need to be some distance from the NRA. Their purpose is protecting the 2A, while this proposal is trying to cut down on gun crime. Any organization formed under this proposal would need to be transparent in it's operation, and pro-actively go public whenever bad actors are discovered. "Shooter Web Uncovers Another Terror Plot" is much better than "Shooter Web Involved in Another Terror Plot." (I know I know...MSM are in the tank for gun control, but I can dream)

[RX-79G]

I have already "sunk" the primary version of this as the sole method of validating a gun purchaser as legal. Now the original is just an add-on for anyone who likes it, and there is no reason that either side is going to like it aside from those that see it as easier than doing a bunch of different paperwork.

The central problem I see is that you guys really like the way trust networks work, and you'd like to solve other problems using it.

The rest of the world does not work much like the strange and wonderful world of computer coding. There is really no analog to something like shareware, and SSL certificates are only similar to things that banks did before there were central exchanges and banks.

Everywhere else business and people use centralized standard setters - like UL, ANSI, Federal Reserve, DOJ, FDA, municple building code, etc. They complain about dealing with these entities - but they trust them in that they are one authority looking after everyone, they answer for their errors and can be appealed to. What you are selling is completely outside the experience and comfort of most people, and it takes too long to explain it to get any average person (voter) to follow and see the complete structure and logic.

I am able to follow the whole thing, and I don't see the logic or benefit. It sounds like an administrative nightmare that would need to be overseen by a group of people that keep saying "trust me" when asked what's going on.

The SSL model is not an appropriate application to govern gun control, and none of the suggestions for how it works would appeal to either side. I really think you're wasting your time. If I came up with 3 major objections in the first 5 minutes of reading the proposal, people who actually do public policy for a living are going to make mulch out of it.

[tsgsjeremy]

RX - this proposal is trying to cut down on gun crime to a) save lives, and b) take away the most effective tool the gun control folks have - mass shootings.

And yeah, you're starting to persuade me against the distributed trust model. (more on the other thread)