How would YOU reform gun laws if forced to?

[rebs]

There already is enough gun laws in place and it is not stopping crime. Look at the statistics for the states and cities that have the strictest gun laws and you will find they also have the highest crime rate. Chicago, New York City, Washington DC and so on.
In New York State we have a law that if you get caught with an illegal firearm you get an automatic one year jail term. The problem no gets the jail term, they are all plea bargained down to a lesser charge.
They need to enforce the laws all ready on the books.

[sigcurious]

Agreed Chuck, NJ and Cali have effectively REMOVED almost all rights to own and carry firearms.

Really? Let's see you proposed 10 day wait. California has a 10 day wait. You proposed some sort of safety test. California requires a one time written test to get a handgun safety certificate, then a safe handling demonstration at each handgun purchase. You propose a 15 day wait on CCW. In the parts of California that do issue, it takes more than 15 days and in those parts that don't...well those folks are waiting years for the court battles to be won.

Seems like you might need to go over the laws you're supposedly for and against, because they seem to be one in the same.

Also you still haven't addressed under your system, how to define and sort new gun owners from people who already own guns.

[Ben Towe]

You imply that crimes of passion occur because it's easy to buy a gun. I cannot think of a single crime, high profile or not, that occurred because there is no waiting period or evaluation at the point of purchase. Mass murderers generally plan and amass gear and weapons over months or years, gangbangers buy their weapons on the street corner or steal them, people who snap (crime of passion) use whatever is handy, gun, knife or club...

[StainlessSteel215]

Did I once mention asinine laws such as a limit on round capacity, the right to effectively carry your firearm anywhere except state institutions, the right to use hollow-points, a ban on "assault weapons"...? No. My apparently half-assed proposals are all targeting NEW gun purchases.

Read a few posts back bout how very EASY it is to tell when they run background checks to know whether you have already made a purchase or not! Serials get logged into a state police database.

Yes, I think waiting periods for NBEW gun owners should be enforced for a cooling off period. Just my $.02

[zxcvbob]

Assuming this will take a few years and I can't just do it all at once:

1. Repeal the 1968 Gun Control Act. All of it.
2. Remove silencers from the NFA.
3. Reopen the machine registery.
4. Repeal the 1934 NFA.
5. Disband the BATF. The FBI and the Treasury Dept can easily handle what little legitimate function they do.

Oh No! Felons will be able to own gun! Little kids can go to Ace hardware and buy an "assault rifle"! That's the way it was in this country for almost 200 years; what changed in 1968?

[sigcurious]

Did I once mention asinine laws such as a limit on round capacity, the right to effectively carry your firearm anywhere except state institutions, the right to use hollow-points, a ban on "assault weapons"...? No. My apparently half-assed proposals are all targeting NEW gun purchases.

Read a few posts back bout how very EASY it is to tell when they run background checks to know whether you have already made a purchase or not! Serials get logged into a state police database.

Yes, I think waiting periods for NBEW gun owners should be enforced for a cooling off period. Just my $.02

So now there's automatic registration too? Now you've added another cost too, it takes money to maintain a database of registered firearms. Are the general tax payers paying for this? Is there a new registration fee tacked onto transfers?

For that to work, you have to register and regulate ALL firearms transfers and imports. That means inheritances, private party and new residents. On top of which now you have to get this information out to all the previous gun owners and new residents so they can come in and register to be legal, lest they be considered "new" gun buyers next time they try to purchase a gun.

BTW...California requires handgun registration for new residents, and private party transfers have to be done at a FFL and are subject to the same 10 day wait.

You didn't mention those other specifics, but you mentioned about half of the highlights of California's gun laws in your "very minimal" regulation. For the record, you can own ARs and AKs etc, you can own "parts kits" of normal capacity magazines, you can use hollow points(one of the few things they don't attempt to regulate).

So again...sounds like what you propose is already in action...but when it's in action...you disagree with it?

[Salmoneye]

How would YOU reform gun laws if forced to?

I'd repeal all gun laws of any kind...

[Salmoneye]

Oh No! Felons will be able to own gun! Little kids can go to Ace hardware and buy an "assault rifle"! That's the way it was in this country for almost 200 years; what changed in 1968?

Irrational fear of The Black Panthers...

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteel215

I feel these are VERY minimal regulations that would have a very insignificant impact on responsible gun owners. I do think some regulation is important. If these simple ideas could help reduce the amount of impulse buyers who NEED A GUN ASAP to possibly carry out a malicious act...I think they would be well worth it. Thoughts?

First - All your proposals are contrary to the strict language of the 2nd Amendment. I know attorneys (such as our moderator, Frank Etting) like to remind me that the Supreme Court has held the 2nd Amendment is subject to "reasonable" regulation ... but the Supreme Court has been wrong before (or, at least, has reversed itself before). There is no "reasonable" in the 2nd Amendment. "Shall not be infringed" is a clear, blanket statement allowing of no exceptions.

Second, if your intent is to limit buys by so-called "impulse" buyers (your term, not mine), what's the justification? Are these buyers a problem? Look at the recent mass shootings. Cho at Virginia Tech had purchased his guns legally and a 10-day wait wouldn't have stopped him. Major Hasan at Fort Hood owned his handguns legally -- a 10-day wait wouldn't have stopped him. The guy in Aurora, CO, had bought his guns legally -- a 10-day wait wouldn't have stopped him. Those three shooters, as well as many more, had already been checked by the system and were cleared to buy firearms. Where are your statistics to prove that "impulse" buyers are in any way a problem worth addressing in a law? Further, don't we already HAVE a law that requires a 10-day wait for people who don't have permits or licenses? I believe we do ... so what is your new law going to accomplish?

Further, what about the corollary? How does you law affect the woman whose husband or boyfriend has just threatened to kill her and who NEEDS a gun RIGHT NOW to defend herself? Your law (just like the existing law) means a person who may have a legitimate NEED for a gun immediately is not allowed the means to defend him or herself for ten days. Do you consider that fair? Be honest -- suppose it was your daughter who suddenly needed to defend herself.

Lastly, I am not impressed that you think "some" regulation is necessary. Once the door is open to "some" (or to "reasonable") regulation, Pandora's box is open. From that point forward, all discussion is subjective: How much is enough? How much is too much? What amount of regulation is "reasonable"?

I don't choose to play. I think the language of the 2nd Amendment is clear and concise. I think that ALL existing gun control laws need to be repealed. It's illegal to assault people, and it's even more illegal (if you'll pardon a literary device) to assault people with a firearm. Why aren't the laws (and the enforcement thereof) more concerned with arresting and punishing people who commit real crimes, rather than trying to turn honest citizens into paperwork criminals?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteel215

I support my 2A rights as much as anyone else on here....

If you think you support 2A rights as much as anyone on here, I respectfully submit that you don't understand them, because your proposals are extremely anti-2A.

I just feel that small measures for NEW gun owners could possibly help reduce some of the impulse purchases that lead to crime.

And, once again, exactly which "impulse purchases" is it that lead to crime? You are proposing a comprehensive solution without having identified a problem. Suppose all your provisions were put in force tomorrow (ignoring, for the moment, the fact that most of them are already in place) ... how many crimes, and of what type(s), would be prevented? What crimes are actually committed by these so-called "impulse buyers" of yours?

Originally Posted by StainlessSteel215

Might as well delete this thread. Sorry....guess Ill take my communist views elsewhere. No room for open discussion

There's plenty of room for pen discussion. We are having an open discussion. The problem is, you were hoping for support and you aren't finding any, so NOW you want the open discussion to disappear.

That's not very intellectually honest, now is it?

[StainlessSteel215]

oy yoy yoyyy I'm getting eaten alive in here.
Listen guys, my intent while thinking up this threads was not to infringe upon our existing 2A rights....I just thought it may be beneficial to enforce a few TIGHTER regulations for new gun purchases for those who do not yet EXERCISE their 2A rights....to futher ensure that they pass the motions to owning a gun.

I'll say it right now (and not because I feel I'm getting "online bullied") but now I do agree that my suggestions would not be cost effective, practical, and possibly lead to big gov planting a foot in the door on slamming our 2A rights.

Jeez - I do respect honest feedback but that was a massacre. Sorry!

**EDIT**

Aguila - I dont pretend that I didnt mean what I wrote or am angry because its not getting a positive response. Its an online forum....these responses are to be expected. Ill admit - I dont have an honest, intelligent response to most of your 2A infringement arguments. Honestly...looking back although I had good intentions I dont think my proposals hold much credibility now.

[Tom Servo]

I do strongly support a small waiting period for NEW gun owners though. Since every gun purchase requires a state police background check...Im pretty sure it would be easy to tell if they were approved and bought a gun or not.

Not every state has Pennsylvania's system. Many states have no central registry. What you're proposing would be more restrictive than existing laws in those states.

These sort of things need discussion in my opinion. Nothing is perfect, but in my opinion something has to be brought to the table. We cant have it all.

No, they don't. I don't mean to be smarmy when I say that. It's just that we don't have any need to offer up compromises. The organizations that pushed many of the new restrictions in our lifetimes are now hollow shells of their former selves. If the VPC or the Brady Campaign wants to talk, we have the upper hand, not them. We don't have to make concessions to gain something, so why do so?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteel215

Read a few posts back bout how very EASY it is to tell when they run background checks to know whether you have already made a purchase or not! Serials get logged into a state police database.

Whoa, Nelly!

You're in Pennsylvania, do you belong to PAFOA, or participate on their foruum? The PA state police database has been discussed innumerable times, always pointing out that it is NOT a complete registry, and cannot be both because of how it's compiled, and because PA state law does not allow a firearms "registry." All your state police database covers is purchases through FFLs.

What about someone who moves to PA from Vermont and brings a collection of, oh let's say 50 firearms, including 20 handguns. They do not appear in the PA state police database, and PA has NO requirement for them to be reported to or registered with anyone. Let's say that person is like me, a senior citizen, Vietnam veteran, NRA-certified instructor who has been shooting (responsibly) for more than 50 years.

I'm not in your database. So you want to make it so I can't buy gun number 51 tomorrow if I find it at a gun show?

You don't even understand your own state's laws, yet you want to change the laws all across the country. That's dangerous.

[StainlessSteel215]

This is a forum of (mostly) intelligent and insightful gun owners and thats the reason I joined. Im 30 now and have only been a gun owner for maybe 6-7 years now. I know a few things about PA laws but NEVER pretended to be an expert on the topic. This was an honest opinion from Joe Shmoe, so lets stop cramming words in my mouth.

I am a person who sometimes thinks out loud and isnt afraid to throw open suggestions out there, even at my own expense which clearly is what happened in here. again speaking as a union guy I FULLY support the NRA's lobby power and appreciate all they have done over the last 100 years (whenever it was created).

I just thought that a discussion for stricter measures for NEW gun owners could be beneficial to us, the public, and anyone on the front lines of keeping the public safe. Fair enough?

[Edward429451]

I favor Sparks idea. Trash ALL of the gun laws. Enforce the laws about crime in general. If a man has served his time, all rights should be restored. If a man is reformed enough to be released from jail, then he should be able to do anything he pleases. If a man is seen unfit to own a gun, then he should remain in jail.

Disband the ATF, and provide a Voluntary qualification course. If a person wishes to make a show to the community that he is proficient, and passes the qual course, ammo subsides (sp?) should be provided.

[StainlessSteel215]

Now THAT sounds dangerous to me Edward. Exactly who is fit to decide whether an ex-con is fit to own a gun after they are released from prison??? What sort of eval must they pass to convince some board that they are responsible??

I think it should be a LIFETIME ban on guns if your crime had ANYTHING to do with weapons offenses, assault, etc. Would sure make those guys think twice about committing a crime.

[sigcurious]

I am still curious as to why you didn't look to states where this type of thing is the norm, to see that it doesn't work.

But this still just doesn't sit right.

I just thought it may be beneficial to enforce a few TIGHTER regulations for new gun purchases for those who do not yet EXERCISE their 2A rights....to futher ensure that they pass the motions to owning a gun.

You consider it a right...but then you need to jump through hoops to exercise that right? With the few exceptions,such as getting a permit for public assembly(which arguably lawful gun ownership affects no one, whereas lawful public assembly can affect lots of people by virtue of congesting public space etc), you need not jump through any hoops to exercise your rights.

[sigcurious]

I FULLY support the NRA's lobby power and appreciate all they have done over the last 100 years (whenever it was created).

Current NRA is one thing, but you may want to look into their history before making a blanket statement like that, specifically look into Karl T. Frederick and his views/statements during the 1934 NFA creation.

[Edward429451]

The Parole board. The eval would consist of a panel of judges or whatever, and his statements and behavior given upon his entry into the DOC, in addition to the mans behavior while incarcerated would be taken into account, as well as his general attitude. This should be a very strict eval., and I would suspect that not many would be released. This would in turn send a message to all people considering crime, that crime does not pay and they had better behave themselves.

It's actually very simple but is indeed a radical change of thinking to how things are now. My understanding is that most of the violent crime is perpetrated by repeat offenders. Once they are out of the loop, things would turn around.

I think it's scary because it intimates personal responsibility, an almost unheard of concept.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteel215

Now THAT sounds dangerous to me Edward. Exactly who is fit to decide whether an ex-con is fit to own a gun after they are released from prison??? What sort of eval must they pass to convince some board that they are responsible??

But for a couple of hundred years, ex-felons were not prohibited from owning firearms once they had served their sentence. Was blood running in the streets as a result? And what's the logic of a law that makes a check forger a prohibited person FOR LIFE because of a conviction for a non-violent crime?

You keep saying your proposals are intended to stop crimes, but you haven't identified any crimes that would be stopped.

Ex-felons? Google up "Petit Cheshire Connecticut." You will find the story from a few years ago about two allegedly "non-violent" felon parolees who decided to pull off a home invasion. They entered a residence at oh-dark-thirty. The husband/father was asleep on a sofa -- they beat him almost to death with a baseball bat, then tied him up in the basement. They forced the wife to drive one of them to a bank and withdraw money. They raped the wife, then strangled her. They molested the two daughters, then tied them to their beds, doused the house with gasoline, and tossed a match on their way out.

The husband survived because he was able to crawl out. He was so badly beaten that when he crawled to a neighbor's house, the neighbor didn't recognize him. The wife was already dead, the two daughters died in the fire. The perps were caught, tried, and convicted. Both are on death row.

NO GUNS WERE USED. How would your proposed laws in any way have helped prevent this? You are focusing on a tool, when the problem is the person using the tool. Evil people do not need guns to perform evil acts. If someone wants to commit a "crime of passion" (again, your words) and can't get a gun for ten days ... they'll use an axe, a knife, a machete, a baseball bat, or a can of gasoline and a match.

[StainlessSteel215]

**EDIT**
Fair enough Edward, Aguila, etc. I just think it's rolling a the dice a bit ya know? I would imagine that should take strict follow-up to ensure the parolee is flying straight...and thats just more taxpayer dollars wasted. You are right, everyone knows a bad person will commit a crime regardless of access to a gun or not. But in my opinion the stakes go WAY up as soon as you license an ex-con a firearm and they now have to make crucial decisions on a daily basis.

Listen guys, logging out for the day. Thanks for your contributions. I respect your opinins and thats why I love this place so much...you old timers and long-time gun owners are truly knowledgable in this area and perhaps I have a lot to learn. In fact, as a relatively young gun owner I KNOW i have much to learn. I will read and listen more and yap less. I am not too big to admit that.

Just one scmuck's point of view thats all....

[Chaz88]

I am going to agree with the OP... Sort of. On the face of it an argument can be made for reasonable restrictions and regulations for purchasing and owning guns. However I do think it is not legal to do so if strict scrutiny is applied to the second amendment. The way to do it would be to amend the constitution, good luck finding enough support to do that.

Whenever this topic comes up I also think of my Australian and British friends that accepted / had forced on them reasonable regulations and ended up with virtually no private gun ownership. Some of my Australian friends saw nearly priceless guns confiscated and destroyed along with the Saturday night specials.

[JimPage]

Aguilla Blanca: That's easy: Let's have a ten day waiting period to buy a gallon of gasoline.

I have yet to hear of a "reasonable gun control law" except from those people who use the phrase to describe the unreasonable laws they are proposing.

[Tom Servo]

I just thought that a discussion for stricter measures for NEW gun owners could be beneficial to us, the public, and anyone on the front lines of keeping the public safe. Fair enough?

It's a fair and understandable question. My point is this: it's been asked and answered before. We've been having the conversation on the national scale for nearly 50 years. The answer is that more restrictions have never been proven to reduce crime. They only make it harder for the law-abiding to own and use firearms.

[Aikibiker]

Mandatory weapons training beginning in middle school stressing safety and accuracy given to all students. Voila now everyone has had training. Make free adult education classes available for the old farts and new immigrants.

Anyone convicted of a felony or adjudicated insane (this is the we the jury find the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity thing) gets their dirver's license (or state ID) taken away. When they get a new one after they get out their status is displayed on their license (or state ID) as simply "no guns" in big red letters. Everyone has to show their driver's license (or state ID) to the person selling them the gun. Person doing the selling is responsible not to sell to people without a driver's license (or state ID) or to people with "no guns" written on their license (or state ID) in big red letters.

Those are the only gun laws I would support.

I would support restrictions on destructive devices that are explosives based solely on the storage and training concerns explosives come with. If you can demonstrate that you have had propper training and have whatever is necessary to store them safely and securely I see no reason not to allow you to buy a grenade or rocket launcher. Do you think there is some reason YOU shouldn't have access to those weapons? Please share it with the group.