The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old December 20, 2012, 06:19 AM   #1
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 370
I think the threat of a semi auto and magazine ban might be a good thing.

Whoa whoa slow down there. Take a breath and hear me out.

I watched Obama's press meeting earlier tonight and to be honest it made me feel better about the upcoming battle.

I think the threat of a semi auto and magazine/clip ban could prove to be beneficial to both sides.

The antis are chopping at the bit for a new ban while the pro side wants nothing to do with it. Each side can use the threat to torpedo the entire thing. I guess you could use a mutually assured destruction comparison here.

At each extreme end is the threat of a new ban. Both sides can't stand there and do nothing. They will have to meet in the middle.

I think there are a lot of good things in the middle such as:

1). Allow the public to run background checks for the sole purpose of transferring firearms. Now I have read that the federal government can't regulate commerce between citizens of the same state. Someone correct me if I'm incorrect, please. Interstate transfers are already covered by federal law. How would the Feds get the public to do background checks for private transfers? I haven't really been able to figure that one out yet. Anyone got any ideas?

With the advent of technology and mobile devices you could even meet up in a parking lot with someone and do a check right there using a mobile app. A check could just result in a deny or approved message. It doesn't have to give details on the potential buyer's background.

2). How about tax credits for firearm safes? Certain percent up to a max amount. That'd be great I think. You get the security of a safe along with a little tax credit. Win win.

3). A small tax on firearms and ammo. These funds would strictly be used to help button up the mental health issues that we have in regards to gun ownership. These people are unhealthy and need help. I don't think many of the responsible owners here would be okay with a mentally unhealthy person (danger to himself or others) getting his or her hands on a firearm.

4). Create a program to train volunteers, no pay, to pull guard duty at schools. You could use the same methods of screening candidates as you would for hiring police officers. Background checks, character references, psychological evaluations would all be required. They would get much of the same training as officers do. Maybe there could be some wiggle room in the way of physical fitness due to the nature of the position. The wiggle room would simply widen the pool of candidates. A priority could be given to those who have military or LEO experience however I have little doubt that such a program would have any trouble attracting volunteers.

I honestly can't believe that either side would be completely opposed to any of this.

Now of course there has to be equal representation from both sides in Biden's task force. I imagine unequal representation would be too easy to spot and Obama and Biden will simply be called out on it. I don't think that will happen. A slight skew, maybe.

That's all I have for now. Please be mindful that these are simply ideas I pulled out of my ass along with some ideas from other postings I've come across. Also please be mindful that I have no LE or military experience so please be kind in regards to number four up above.

Last edited by Davey; December 20, 2012 at 06:24 AM.
Davey is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 07:13 AM   #2
droptrd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 315
those are some reasonable ideas to maybe coax the libs away from destroying the 2am. its a shame that it may have to come to that.
droptrd is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 07:23 AM   #3
foxytwo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2010
Posts: 187
You are talking about gun control, pure and simple. Regulate one item this month, regulate another item next month. That is preping the people, then when you are not looking they will ban every firearm and the people will be conditioned to accept it. Any gun control is against the constitution.

When all politicians lose their armed security (no guns or security detail) then they would be like the unarmed citizen. Would they still like gun control? I would not ever give up my guns!!
foxytwo is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 07:39 AM   #4
iraiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2012
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 873
I won't support any new taxes, restrictions, bans or anything of the sort.

Quote:
1). Allow the public to run background checks for the sole purpose of transferring firearms. Now I have read that the federal government can't regulate commerce between citizens of the same state. Someone correct me if I'm incorrect, please. Interstate transfers are already covered by federal law. How would the Feds get the public to do background checks for private transfers? I haven't really been able to figure that one out yet. Anyone got any ideas?

1)The public can already run background checks and in some instances it is required, you can go to nearly any FFL dealer and pay whatever the going rate is for a transfer on their FFL, normally 20-35 bucks. I wonder if anyone would support making this a requirement nationwide, I won't support it because it is highly suspect whether it would have prevented any shootings.

Quote:
2). How about tax credits for firearm safes? Certain percent up to a max amount. That'd be great I think. You get the security of a safe along with a little tax credit. Win win.
2)I disagree with the premise of a tax credit for a gun safe, essentially that is forcing another tax payer to help me buy it, I consider that wrong.

Quote:
3). A small tax on firearms and ammo. These funds would strictly be used to help button up the mental health issues that we have in regards to gun ownership. These people are unhealthy and need help. I don't think many of the responsible owners here would be okay with a mentally unhealthy person (danger to himself or others) getting his or her hands on a firearm.
3)I won't support a a single penny in taxes on ammunition, Our government is clearly made up of individuals who will spend it how ever they see fit, regardless of what the tax is supposed to pay for. Evidence of this is literally everywhere.

3A) We already have a system in place that forbids someone who has been adjudicated mentally defective from purchasing a gun, If one is adjudicated mentally defective they will not pass a FFL background check to purchase a firearm.

I predict there will be an attempt to corrupt the current system with measures designed to ban certain persons from purchasing a firearm without receiving any due process of law.

Quote:
4). Create a program to train volunteers, no pay, to pull guard duty at schools. You could use the same methods of screening candidates as you would for hiring police officers. Background checks, character references, psychological evaluations would all be required. They would get much of the same training as officers do. Maybe there could be some wiggle room in the way of physical fitness due to the nature of the position. The wiggle room would simply widen the pool of candidates. A priority could be given to those who have military or LEO experience however I have little doubt that such a program would have any trouble attracting volunteers.
4) I am convinced the left will not allow this, the most vocal proponents of gun control will specifically state that only the government should have any guns, they have gone out of their way in some states to make it illegal to take any firearm onto school property for any reason, unless you are the government of course.

If we want to ban certain weapons and magazines, and place further restrictions on items, let's start with the government, then MAYBE we'll talk. Until then forget it.
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member Since 1999

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason

Last edited by iraiam; December 20, 2012 at 07:45 AM.
iraiam is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 07:42 AM   #5
Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2000
Posts: 3,690
No thanks, just more incremental steps to increased restrictions, taxes, and "reasonable", meaning unreasonable and un-Constitutional violations of our RIGHTS.
__________________
Pilot
Pilot is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 08:12 AM   #6
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 370
I didn't know anyone could do an FFL transfer in states where it wasn't legally required.

As for armed security what if the local PD deputized these volunteers. That way they are kinda like normal police?

I'm not crazy about tax breaks or increases either.

I hate gun control as much as anyone here but this time I think something is gonna give.
Davey is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 08:17 AM   #7
Morgoroth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 12, 2010
Posts: 198
Most these guys are shutting you down and some of them have good reasons.
But I have to say I like your ideas. They may not be perfect, but I have to commend you for suggesting some reasonable options that we can discuss.

I do think that the volunteer idea is good and I'm not opposed to the safe idea since we give tax credits for other silly things anyway.
Morgoroth is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 08:34 AM   #8
iraiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2012
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 873
Quote:
I didn't know anyone could do an FFL transfer in states where it wasn't legally required.
Yes, call your favorite LGS and ask them, I am sure they would be more than willing to do it for the standard fee, which may not be a bad idea if you don't know the buyer; this day and age there is a lawyer on every street corner willing to "sue for food".

I personally never sold a firearm to anyone other than an FFL holder, but I have gifted a couple to family members, whom I know for a fact can pass the background check.
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member Since 1999

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason

Last edited by iraiam; December 20, 2012 at 08:41 AM.
iraiam is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 09:27 AM   #9
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davey
At each extreme end is the threat of a new ban. Both sides can't stand there and do nothing. They will have to meet in the middle.
I do not agree. "Nothing" may be the least harmful option.
zukiphile is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 09:59 AM   #10
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 370
Now that I do think about it nothing would be best.
Davey is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 10:00 AM   #11
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,513
We already have two threads open on this matter, and a sticky at the top of the forum explaining that.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08297 seconds with 9 queries