How would YOU reform gun laws if forced to?

[StainlessSteel215]

I know...hot button topic right now. Specially with everything going on in the country and all the politics behind this concept. Although I obviously lean way more to our 2A rights not being infringed upon.....I do see a couple of loopholes in my humble opinion. Nothing is a perfect solution, but some states like PA where I live can make it awfully easy to abuse this wonderful right.

So, assume for a minute that you were not an avid gun owner/collector/competition or target shooter. You are John Q Public and concerned about how easy it is for anyone with a seemingly clean records to arm themselves TO THE TEETH effective immediately if they want to....and possibly carry out a horrific mission. I think everything can be improved upon, and I would like to get honest feedback on a a few very serious proposals. What do you think of these measures on purchases for NEW gun owners?

• A mandatory waiting period of 10 days from point of interest until permission to purchase the gun and pick it up on purchases for NEW gun owners. A cooling off "layaway" period of sorts and the background check happens ONLY after the 10 days are up.

• A VERY strict examination/interview where applicants are screened using a universal standardized test of sorts. Every gun store will have an expert on duty with extensive training in mental health to properly evaluate each applicant's body language and communication. (they would check for signs of drug or alcohol abuse, mental illness, malicious intent or impulsive tendencies, or ANY indication that the gun would be illegally transferred to someone else). If candidate doesnt meet the minimum score needed based on various criteria, gun store can refuse the purchase.

• A NEW gun buyer would have to demonstrate a basic knowledge of proper gun handling and safety practices, obviously each instance would be different depending on the type of firearm.

• Minimum 15-day waiting period when applying for carry license.

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?

[sigcurious]

So wait 10 days even if you already own guns? And what evidence is there that waiting periods stop a statistically significant amount of gun crime, or any gun crime at all?

Force small businesses to employ multiple additional people? Who's going to pay for it? Who decides these criteria?

Again, what are the criteria? How do you know if they're a new gun buyer? Are all guns registered now so you know if they own guns or not?

What's the point? If you're trying to stop a crime where a gun might be concealed to commit this crime...the person doing so is already not following the law...

Seems like a lot of invasive not minimal regulation to me.

[Patriot86]

Yeah..maybe your heart is in the right place; all of us gun owners hate when some not job goes on a rampage and the media decry its because of the guns and we want to prevent that.... but your argument that your ideas would have a minimal effect on lawful gun owners doesn't hold water.

1. Waiting periods will/do not keep criminals from acquiring firearms, all this does as act to discourage private lawful gun ownership. Those intent on harming others will find another way or find a way to illegally obtain a firearm to do their evil deeds. In regards to so called crimes of passion; again someone in a state of rage will find a way to do harm to someone if they are intent enough. You tell some woman who may be your daughter or your mother who is being stalked she needs to wait 10 days to defend herself...you tell some elderly person who may be your father or mother that they need to wait 10 days to defend themselves after being threatened by local hood's.

2. Would make owning/operating a gun store extremely expensive and basically impractical; guns would be much harder to lawfully obtain and there would be far fewer gun stores. Unless these additional people were paid for by the Government this large cost would be passed on to the consumer. Again this would do nothing to keep criminals from getting illegal guns and would just discourage lawful gun ownership. I will give you that it would also drive up the cost of illegal guns but that is just a cost of doing business as a criminal. Moreover what is a sign of mental illness? I think out loud sometimes when I am adding up large numbers...is that a sign? Maybe someone just had a 3 cups of coffee and are jittery..is that a sign of drug abuse? What giant bureaucratic apparatus would regulate what constitutes rational to deny someone the right to purchase a firearm.

3. Literacy tests have pretty much been eliminated as a "test" of ones competence to exercise their right to vote as it disenfranchises the poor and minorities; why would this be any different in regards to guns? I am for having to show some kind of competence in gun handing to obtain a carry permit but such a test should be inexpensive or free; much like a drivers licence and readily available to all. If drunkin-clueless Bubba wants to exercise his gun-clueless right to defend his home with a shotgun who are you or I to tell him that he doesn't know enough about firearms to do so.

4. Often people who get a carry permit are doing so in response to an immediate threat; be it from criminals, a violent individual in their lives, the sudden need to traverse dangerous areas for work or the need to transport valuables from place to place for ones job. Moreover it has been statistically shown CC permit holders are several times less likely to commit all types of violent and non violent crime vs. the general public.


5. Many spree killers/shooters who obtain their weapons "lawfully" get them weeks, sometimes months before they commit a crime.



Now what would I do to "improve" gun control?

1. Improve the way people who should be disqualified from owning a firearm due to legitimate mental illness are reported through the background check system.

2. Go after straw purchasers with much more vigor; punish every straw purchaser to the fullest extent of the law. DO NOT allow plea deals for straw purchasers; this sends a message that if you straw purchase a firearm to someone you will go to jail. Far too often even when they are caught and prosecuted straw purchasers are given a plea deal and receive little jail time.

[Tom Servo]

Let's go down the list one by one.

A mandatory waiting period of 10 days from point of interest until permission to purchase the gun and pick it up.

There is no evidence whatsoever that waiting periods have any effect on violent crime. Criminals don't tend to buy their guns at retail, and the only effect is to make things harder on the law abiding.

A VERY strict examination/interview where applicants are screened using a universal standardized test of sorts.

Who decides the criteria for a "universalized" test? I can tell you it will be arbitrary and unfair.

Every gun store will have an expert on duty with extensive training in mental health to properly evaluate each applicant's body language and communication.

I run a gun shop. I know how thin profit margins are. I can tell you that there is no way the average shop could afford the salary of a consultant with qualifications like you're proposing. This would make it impossible for shops to do business.

Have you ever met a sociopath? I have. They can ace personality tests. They can ace lie-detector tests. The very people you seek to prevent from owning firearms won't be deterred in the least.

Furthermore, folks who are just plain eccentric (or nervous about taking confrontational and intrusive tests) will give false positives, and they'll be punished unfairly.

A NEW gun buyer would have to demonstrate a basic knowledge of proper gun handling and safety practices, obviously each instance would be different depending on the type of firearm.

Again, we're down to the logistics of administering such a test. You've just turned a five-minute transaction into a 30-minute transaction, and again, we're talking about piling on the dealer's payroll.

One last point: why should we have to even give ground on this? This isn't 1996. We're winning, and we don't have to make these sorts of concessions any more.

[MLeake]

It pains me to think I spent so many years in uniform defending the Constitution and the rights it affords, so the OP can try to cede a core right of the people.

OP, you may think your ideas have merit, but the previous posters have pretty well torn up each idea.

My argument is that while rights may, in instances, be regulated, such regulation is supposed to be minimal. We already have too much regulation. Few here are willing to support any more.

[Ben Towe]

I'm sort of shocked that I'm reading this on TFL. I'm also astounded that you actually have the audacity to describe you proposal as "VERY minimal". Really? You just proposed ridiculous waiting periods and psych evaluations for a simple weapons purchase.

[Sparks1957]

If I could reform gun laws, I would roll all the way back to 1934 and scrap them all.

Apologists like the OP are what has allowed the gradual erosion of 2nd amendment rights over the past 80 years.

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteel215

• Minimum 15-day waiting period when applying for carry license.

Are you working under the assumption that a license to carry is issued instantaneously? Don't we all wish? [<--sarcasm]

Many, if not most States that issue such permits already take upwards of MONTHS to issue the permit. Why in the world would you want to add to this already lengthy time period?

And what about those States that do not require a license, in order to carry? There are 28 States that do not require any license to carry openly. In 12 of those States, the right to carry openly is an established right. Further, among those 28, are 4 States that do not require a license to carry, period. Who is going to mandate that people must have a permit to exercise their rights to defend themselves?

[StainlessSteel215]

Its just honest, open discussion guys...thats it.
I support my 2A rights as much as anyone else on here....I just feel that small measures for NEW gun owners could possibly help reduce some of the impulse purchases that lead to crime. I am of the mind that many crimes of passion or ill will begin with a fast gun purchase as long as the record is clean....and a "cool off" period could drastically help improve this. I guess in retrospect the notion of having a mental illness consultant would be totally un-workable. 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.

These proposals I thought up would target NEW gun owners, thats it

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.

@ Al: I am working under the assumption that similar states follow PA license practices. I was able to go through the entire motions and attain my permit in under 3 days I believe. Went to the local court house, filled out the paperwork.....dropped off to my local sheriff office.....they called me to come pickup after 2 days. Went back to court house and got the license. 3 days

[Sparks1957]

I support my 2A rights as much as anyone else on here....I just feel that small measures for NEW gun owners could possibly help reduce some of the impulse purchases that lead to crime

I think many of us would question the validity of the first part of the above statement.

The fact of the matter is that criminals really don't pay much attention to rules and regulations...that's why they are criminals, generally. The only people who would be inconvenienced by any of these "small measures" that you propose would be law-abiding gun owners.

In Vermont, we have no silly permits of any kind, and we would not appreciate your interference in our freedoms.

[Stressfire]

What's wrong with enforcing the ones already on the books rather than making up new ones to placate an opposing group?

I feel these are VERY minimal regulations

In your view, they very well may be, but I believe that they are the first step on a slippery slope.

[dos0711]

Originally Posted by sparks1957

if i could reform gun laws, i would roll all the way back to 1934 and scrap them all.

Apologists like the op are what has allowed the gradual erosion of 2nd amendment rights over the past 80 years.

Sparks for president!

[StainlessSteel215]

I appreciate the honest response Sparks...again...just opening a discussion to folks from all walks and backgrounds. Hey if it gets shot to hell on here, thats a clear indication of what a handful of folks truly think. By the way....if it matters one bit I am a proud union member and dont go lightly in laws that impact my rights as a union member. Rights that were fought long and hard for and that directly impact things like collective bargaining. However, I am of the mind that people should always be open to reasonable negotiations. Maybe what I wrote is FAR from reasonable to some....I am just inviting open honest talks.

Please dont anyone take personal offense to what I wrote. Its just brainstorming to attempt to slow the face pace in which new gun owners can own a firearm. Maybe thats a stupid idea to some. To me I think its smart and again DOES NOT affect repeat, responsible gun purchases.

I do also agree with the above statement about straw purchases.

In fact, the jerkoff here in Philly who sold the illegal gun to a man who recently just shot and killed Officer Bradley Fox, a decorated ex-military turned police officer, is now being made a prime example for straw purchases.....I hope they come down HARD on this guy and throw everything in the books at him to set a tone.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20..._gun_bill.html

[Sparks1957]

and again DOES NOT affect repeat, responsible gun purchases

Sorry to be so cantankerous, but it does... waiting periods? carry permits? psychological testing? Those don't affect me, when I don't have to endure any of them right now???

C'mon, man. Read your own posts.

[StainlessSteel215]

Sparks, its simple. I just think new gun owners could go through a few extra ropes if reasonable measures were in place. Maybe these are NOT reasonable...you are the voices here. Just talking openly...

[Stressfire]

Responsible gun owners are gun owners who choose to be responsible.

People with cars speed. They also drive drunk. People with good jobs skim the company till. I could go on, but it's early and my brain is not cooperating

Speeding is illegal, so is drunk driving. Theft/embezzlement is illegal as well.

Have stricter laws prevented any of the above?

[sundog]

I kinda like Sparks idea. Scrap ALL of it! Any law or regulation depending on NFA 34 and GCA 68 (or similar law) goes also. Then identify those categories of people such as violent felons, persons of reduced mental capacity, insane, etc., who cannot have possession, and allow for legal review to restore the right. Set mandatory sentencing for commission of a crime with a firearm.

[Chuckusaret]

I believe that all laws that restricts law abiding citizens of the U.S. of the right to keep and bear arms should be repealed

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution states that it is a "Right", not a "privilege".
I strongly suggest that the OP reads this document and takes note that there are no qualifiers mentioned for a person to keep and bear arms.

[StainlessSteel215]

I see where this is going. I do not need to re-read 2A to make my point.

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

[Ben Towe]

You asked for our thoughts and we've given them. There would be no legal way to ascertain who has bought firearms before and who has not, so even if we deemed such regulations prudent then we also have to open a registry of firearms owners to know who is a new buyer and who already owns guns, which is prohibited under current Federal law.

[Chuckusaret]

It is an open discussion, you presented a subject to debate and we did debate it. Sorry, if you are offended by our replies, but the majority of us are very strong supporters of the Second Amendment as written.

[cannonfire]

I would repeal all federal laws about firearms and leave it up to the states to determine their laws. Only thing I would have the Federal government control would be the import/export portion of firearms. Otherwise the federal government should not have any say in the matter. I guess they would have to regulate the trade between states but the states should be able to handle that by not importing "banned" gun and the such into their state to begin with.

My view is not so much to prevent crime but get the Federal government out of issues it is not constitutionally allowed to be in to begin with

[Chuckusaret]

I would repeal all federal laws about firearms and leave it up to the states to determine their laws.

That would be good unless you live in states like Crazyfornia, NJ, and Il plus several others.

[StainlessSteel215]

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

No, I dont have thin skin I just saw any counter-proposals not being constructive and reverting back to some notion that I dont fully understand or support my 2A rights. I FREELY exercise my 2A rights here in PA and thankful to live in this free state....I just thought perhaps new rules could be pushed into place for new gun owners. Ill leave it at that...there's no simpler way for me to explain my "crazy" thoughts.

I respect what everyone on here wrote.....figured as much but maybe was hopeful for ideas that could help reduce crimes of passion that result in fast, impulse purchases.

[cannonfire]

That would be good unless you live in states like Crazyfornia, NJ, and Il plus several others.

Well that's the point. It would minimize their influence on the rest of the country. If you don't like the laws of your state, it is much easier to change them at a state level rather than fighting it on the Federal level. Worse comes to worst, you are able to move out of the state. Its a lot harder and inconvenient to up and move to a different country.

Edit: I can live with a state democratically voting on certain restrictions on the 2nd amend. If the majority of the people do not want people owning a howitzer or machine gun, I'm ok with that. I'm not ok with the Federal government who is out of touch with the people controlling such restrictions.