A hypothetical gun control proposal

[R.Mackey]

I was thinking that local gun clubs would be able to get their instructors accredited to run the courses and issue certificates of completion that could then be turned in for a license once a background check is compete.

There is not the capacity in existing gun clubs to handle even 1% of the demand such legislation would create. And few of those would be in any way thorough.

Hell, my nonprofit has run classes for benefit of the US Military, teaching skills even they can't afford for every recruit. I see an average of just under two active service men and women (call it 5%) at each open class. (You may similarly assume that police officers may or may not have adequate training. We offer enrollment free to LEO and military. We beg them to come!)

The only extant mechanism with the throughput to suffice is the assortment of Hunter Safety classes in each state. These do reach tens of millions of people every year. However, I'll trust you agree with me that hunting safety is spotty, to the point that merely passing this class doesn't amount to a whole lot. Certainly not good enough to make it mandatory for everyone.

As I mentioned in another thread, if you want to get serious about firearms education, put it in public schools just like driver training. I've taught hundreds of youngsters. It's tractable. Just not cheap.

 

[leftysergeant]

Which part of "...shall not be infringed." don't you get?

What part of "well-regulagted" do you not get?

 

[leftysergeant]

How is the OP infringing? Requiring a safe handling class and licensing is no different that having a driver license...you don't hear many folks outside of FMOTL bitching about that.

It would totally hog-tie the FMOTL and outlaw militias. This is a good thing.

 

[leftysergeant]

There is not the capacity in existing gun clubs to handle even 1% of the demand such legislation would create. And few of those would be in any way thorough.

This is one of my reasons for advancing the Civil Guard concept.

Additionally, with such a requirement in place, the membership in gun clubs would skyrocket. The only problem I can see is finding range space. (Another arguement for a Civil Guard, with an obligation that the state make ranges available and protected from zoning changes.)

 

[LTC8K6]

Registration is never even going to get off the ground in the US. Inclusion of it in any bill is the sure way to keep the bill from going anywhere.

 

[tyr_13]

Registration is never even going to get off the ground in the US. Inclusion of it in any bill is the sure way to keep the bill from going anywhere.

I still don't understand why though. I saw a congressman on CNN cite a survey that showed that most NRA members are for such measures even though the NRA leadership is against them. I can't imagine that non-NRA members oppose them in any great number.

Things that help track and cut down on things like straw buys and transfers will help guns become harder for criminals to get, and they're the ones who shouldn't have them.

 

[Beerina]

Registration is never even going to get off the ground in the US. Inclusion of it in any bill is the sure way to keep the bill from going anywhere.

Registration won't do much to stop incidents. It does, however, create a nice list for going door-to-door to gather up guns, which has actually been done elsewhere.

Seriously, though, what would it buy you? At least licensing and background checks could catch a few crazies or crooks before the fact.

 

[leftysergeant]

Registration won't do much to stop incidents. It does, however, create a nice list for going door-to-door to gather up guns, which has actually been done elsewhere.

Only where the chief executive could rule by edict.

 

[paiute]

What part of "well-regulagted" do you not get?

The part where my rights are infringed by the regulations. Unless the regulations are to organize my militia, they are not allowed under the second amendment.

 

[Hellbound]

Second, licensing and registration information would only be accessible by law enforcement with a warrant/court order. Having any random individual or organization able to access such information to do with as they please is dangerous for everyone, in my opinion.

Actually, I'd make a slight modification. I think any LEO should be able to search the database with a weapon serial number, but searching by a specific person's name/SSN would need a warrant/order. That would probably be a bit difficult to implement, but I don't think we need the extra beauracracy for them to run a search when they find a weapon and try to find out where it came from [/quote]

I still don't understand why though. I saw a congressman on CNN cite a survey that showed that most NRA members are for such measures even though the NRA leadership is against them. I can't imagine that non-NRA members oppose them in any great number.

Yep. That's one of the main reasons I quit the NRA. I think they do more damage than good because they protest so strongly against what I consider reasonable measures.

Registration won't do much to stop incidents. It does, however, create a nice list for going door-to-door to gather up guns, which has actually been done elsewhere.

The same can be said for pretty much anything else that has to be registered. Additionally, I see that as something of a slippery slope argument. If, as Twiggett stated, we require a warrant/court order to search the list, this couldn't happen until a lot of other things had. There's opportunity to stop this before it reached that point. And avoiding reasonable things because, if taken to the extreme, they become unreasonable would prevent us from doing anything.

Seriously, though, what would it buy you? At least licensing and background checks could catch a few crazies or crooks before the fact.

Registration requirements would do three things. First, they'd give a better history on weapons found, which could help identify those who would buy guns legally then sell them to various criminal elements. If all sales are tracked, and the weapons have to be registered, then it makes it harder to do this without leaving a trail. Because right now, you can go through several gun show sales and private sales and thoroughly obscure a weapon's history. A big difference? Probably not, but it would help.

Second, as someone earlier stated, it provides something that a person who disregards the law can be charged for. Criminal elements that simply want to have guns around would have to register them, or they risk charges just for having the weapons found. It's an added burden to gun ownership, but more of a burden to those who would misuse them than for responsible owners.

Third, it would help LEO plan, and possibly save lives there as well. If they need to apprehend a suspect, for example, then a court order/warrant would let them identify what weapons the suspect owned, and at least give them a slightly better chance of knowing what to prepare for. Yes, there are some that would ignore registration requirements and such, so it's more of a positive test than negative (in other words, it could tell you the suspect has weapons, but not that they didn't). But that's better than current information.

The part where my rights are infringed by the regulations. Unless the regulations are to organize my militia, they are not allowed under the second amendment.

I'm sorry, but no. There are regulations limiting speech due to safety concerns. There are regulations that limit your right to vote. Just because it's in the constitution doesn't mean the government can't make any laws to regulate it. That's the "undue burden" that was mentioned before. The government can regulate rights as long as they don't create an undue burden that effectively denies the right. This idea does not.

And if you want to push the militia bit, then an alternative, valid interpretation of the second amendment would require you to be a member of a "well-regulated militia" in order to own a firearm, not just a citizen. However, the courts have ruled differently, that anyone can own a firearm but that such ownership should be well-regulated. I'll take the second option, thanks.

 

[Sabretooth]

It certainly is different. Bearing of arms is explicitly protected without reserve in the Constitution. it was important enough to be made the second amendment. Driving on the public roads is not a constitutional right.

Requiring a safe handling course does not infringe on your rights. Many states (including my state of NY) require such a class before you can obtain a pistol permit. Hunting safety courses are required before you can get a hunting license. These types of requirements having never been found to be Unconstitutional.

Asking people to show they can be responsible with a firearm is by no means a ridiculous request.

 

[shawmutt]

These simple "plans" ignore the many nuances of firearms and the controls already placed on them. For one, the overwhelming majority of crime in the US is committed with handguns. They already have more strict legislation on those. Criminals don't care. Before introducing more restrictions and regulation, important questions need to be answered, like "What is it trying to do?", "Are there similar existing laws already?".

Introduction of firearm licenses: The only purpose of this is to increase the cost to gun owners and make gun ownership prohibitively expensive and more of a pain in the ass. The same with "forced" insurance, mandatory trainings, etc. etc.

Mandatory Firearm Registration: I think anti-gun folks seriously think all firearm owners are idiots. I know Charlie Wilkes does, he can barely hold back the contempt seeping from his fingers. This is all in history. It doesn't work to help the citizen, it only helps the government when they want more power. Further, it doesn't work to reduce crime, as shown in Canada.

No one is being fooled. The overall goal of introduced regulations and restrictions is simply to reduce the amount of firearm owners in this country. It's a misguided attempt to reduce violence.

 

[LTC8K6]

I still don't understand why though. I saw a congressman on CNN cite a survey that showed that most NRA members are for such measures even though the NRA leadership is against them. I can't imagine that non-NRA members oppose them in any great number.

Things that help track and cut down on things like straw buys and transfers will help guns become harder for criminals to get, and they're the ones who shouldn't have them.

Why? Registration equals confiscation. That is the fear.

No one but a law abiding citizen is going to register a firearm.

It's not going to track anything but legal gun transactions, which are already tracked.

In state private transfers of handguns already require a permit in my state, and this has been the case for a long time. This includes any transfer, even a gift, or an inheritance. I don't think it's done a thing except make law abiding citizens give the state an extra $5 each time.

Just to be clear....To buy a Glock I have to go to my Sheriff and give him $5 and a form and ask for a handgun permit. The Sheriff does a check on me to see if there's anything in my background that prevents me from owning a handgun. This takes a few days.

I then go and retrieve my permit, and take it to the shop where I want to buy a handgun. Without this permit, they generally will not even take a handgun out of the display case for you.

I still have to fill out the 4473 and have the federal background check done.

So I have now had 2 government checks done on me before I can purchase a handgun.

If you have gone to the trouble to get a concealed carry permit, it serves as the handgun permit.

How many other layers do we need? What criminal is going to make it past these checks? What criminal is even going to bother?

Why can't we enforce the laws we have? There are certainly plenty of them.

I am not registering any of my firearms, period. I have gone through enough hoops to own them as far as I am concerned. The gov't knows all there is to know about me already. My firearms have never killed anything. I have served in the military. I have nothing on my record except a single speeding ticket.

Registration would be the last straw, imo.

I will personally destroy all of my firearms before I register them, or otherwise take whatever action I can to avoid registration. I am frankly pretty tired of the whole idea of being dictated to over the acts of criminals and psychopaths.

I am fully aware that I have no control here whatsoever, and that I will be swept along with the tide.

 

[LTC8K6]

Requiring a safe handling course does not infringe on your rights. Many states (including my state of NY) require such a class before you can obtain a pistol permit. Hunting safety courses are required before you can get a hunting license. These types of requirements having never been found to be Unconstitutional.

Asking people to show they can be responsible with a firearm is by no means a ridiculous request.

Sure, but the criminals aren't taking these classes or getting these permits.

Also, these classes and permits and ID's cost money. All of this is just falling on the people who obey the rules.

 

[Sabretooth]

Sure, but the criminals aren't taking these classes or getting these permits.

Also, these classes and permits and ID's cost money. All of this is just falling on the people who obey the rules.

Oh, I agreed completely. But, in the case of Sandy Hook, if the mom would've made double-damn sure her legal guns were locked and secured away from her mentally ill son, we might be...just maybe...not discussing this topic across 7 or 8 threads...

Yes, I'm taking a great deal of liberty to speculate what may have happened in that house that day, but since the son was able to obtain 3 of her guns, I'm assuming she did not store them safely, properly, and above all, responsibly.

 

[shawmutt]

Oh, I agreed completely. But, in the case of Sandy Hook, if the mom would've made double-damn sure her legal guns were locked and secured away from her mentally ill son, we might be...just maybe...not discussing this topic across 7 or 8 threads...

Yes, I'm taking a great deal of liberty to speculate what may have happened in that house that day, but since the son was able to obtain 3 of her guns, I'm assuming she did not store them safely, properly, and above all, responsibly.

Her son was a 20-year old man. He wasn't "mentally ill", he had aspergers. There is a whole lot of conjecture associated with the mental condition of the shooter. It seems people just don't want to face the reality that random acts of violence are random.

In my opinion, blaming his mom for his heinous actions is wrong.

 

[BStrong]

Here's what I came up with on 18 Dec:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8856009&postcount=25

From my pov based on my training and experience, if I were put in charge of revamping firearms laws across the board this is what I'd do - warning - there will something guaranteed to piss off everyone.

Federal control over the states - no no-control states, no over controlled states.

Draconian penalities for criminal or negligent misuse or storage of a firearm, including mandatory minimum sentence enhancments for use of a firearm in crime that would be completely seperate from the sentence in the underlying indictment, with no concurrent sentence and no probation/parole option for the court - Example - possession of a firearm during the course of a robbery that doesn't imvolve injury to the victim, lets say 10 years on the firearm charge, to be served in full before 1 day credit on the robbery charge. You get the idea.

Safe storage accross the board - you can purchase a basic steel key entry storage cabinent that will keep kids or honest people out for under $200.00, Undividual pistol safes can be purchased for $100.00 or less.

Safe storage laws not to be intended to require firearms under lock and key when the owner is in residence - the law would be intended to provide security against theft primarily, not as a restriction prohibiting defensive use.

All firearms sales of title 1 firearms subject to NICS instant background check.

All sales must be conducted through an FFL dealer (allowed to charge a modest fee) and subject to the NICS check as above.

Any theft of a firearm must be reported asap - if the owner is in Italy for a month and comes back to find he/she has been robbed, the first call better be to the local agency.

Shall issue carry permits available in every state, subject to training and live fire range qualification every six months - I'd suggest a minimum classroom component of 32 hrs. (an abbreviated version of Police Officer Standards and Training) and the live fire test should be comprehensive. If you want to carry, you have to measure up.

No magazine capacity restrictions - it's a complete waste of effort.

Any semi-auto version of a design originally manufactured as a selective fire or full auto weapon would be subject to NFA registration in a seperate category, not subject to the $200.00 transfer tax or CLEO sign-off. The purchaser would be subject to the NICS instant check only, but would be required to provide a Certificate of Eligibility with photo and prints - this would be transmitted electroniclly to ATF for inclusion in the NFTR (National Firearms Transfer Record) No additional restrictions in any state on this class of firearm beyond the above stated. As part othe above, ATF would have to get their **** fully together wrt the NFTR - it's a shambles now and has been so for the last 30 or so years, don't get me started.

All of the above must be stored in actual safes or vaults. The buyer can bring in a pic of his setup, and sign a statement under threat of prosecution for perjury and a loss of firearms rights for a minimum of let's say, 5 years if his/her semi-auto military type firearms are stolen from home, and there is evidence that the firearms were not securly stored - if a bad actor can remove the whole safe, and the evidence supports that, no charges against the firearm owner

NFA weapons and devices -

Rescind the section of the Firearms Owners Protection Act prohibiting the manufacture of new machine guns - since 1934, there has been ONE crime known to have been commited with prosecution resulting in conviction from possession of a registered MG, and I'm ashamed to admit that it was a LEO who commited the crime. Registered weapons and devices have not been and are not a problem. With the buy in point where it is, even assuming a drop in price for the lower end of the price scale, anybody willing to go through the whole process and a 5 figure investment isn't likely to act out in any criminal fashion.

Oh yeah, carry permit fees, CoE licenses etc, have to be reasonably related to the costs to administer, no $10,000.00 permit fees...

Fire away, I know I'm going to get it from both sides.

 

[shawmutt]

Most of your stuff I agree with--can you guess what

The issue I have with your safe requirements is this--anyone knows a safe is a deterrent, not a guarantee against theft. Those $200 dollar safes are crap and take seconds to break into. Look at any youtube video explaining how to break into safes. So, what is the answer? More expensive safes! And when that doesn't work? What happens when house raids become the norm?

As far as securing to prevent accidents, people are already charged with crimes when their unsecured firearm hurts someone.

Now for the registering--why just the evil black guns? Why just the ones that look like military guns? What about the guns that look more "innocuous" (more wood, less plastic/metal) but still are semi-auto and accept a removable magazine? I see this as a useless pandering step to appease hoplophobes.

ATF getting their **** together, now that made me laugh. Maybe they can start by not losing firearms.

 

[Sabretooth]

Her son was a 20-year old man. He wasn't "mentally ill", he had aspergers. There is a whole lot of conjecture associated with the mental condition of the shooter. It seems people just don't want to face the reality that random acts of violence are random.

In my opinion, blaming his mom for his heinous actions is wrong.

I know. But I remember reading something about the son losing it because the mom was trying to find a way to get her son committed. 20 yo or not, if your own mom doesn't think you can function in society, you probably should make sure your guns are locked away appropriately.

I'll find that text and ETA this post...

ETA: Here's one link: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/1...dam-Lanza-lashing-out-against-treatment-video

Plus, will all due respect, killing your mom with her own gun and then taking those guns to a school to shoot 26 more kids and teachers isn't exactly something a sane person would do. I'll call that a mental illness all day long.

 

[varwoche]

Registration won't do much to stop incidents. It does, however, create a nice list for going door-to-door to gather up guns, which has actually been done elsewhere.

Elsewhere meaning in other countries?

Evidence please.