Gun laws you'd realistically like repealed/changed/created?

[Tom Servo]

one thing that has always irked me, is the check each and every time I buy a gun. A sensible system would seem to me that if you had a gun, then any kind of "check" or waiting period to see if you were likely to harm someone with a gun you were thinking of buying is rather pointless

That's because the FBI must destroy records of checks the day after a completed check. This is to prevent them from compiling a master list of gun owners.

As for UBC's and verification, I'd be hard pressed to find an enforceable method that wouldn't involve registration. The people pushing it won't settle for something that can't be enforced. Even if registration wasn't the intent, it would be the outcome at some point.

And for what? We went over 200 years without background checks, and the Republic still stood. Given the durability of guns, I wouldn't be surprised if most guns in this country were never subject to background checks. The Brady Act hasn't been shown to have reduced crime in the least, so why expand it?

[Brian Pfleuger]

Well, I can see how UBCs could be done without registration. You simply don't enter any of the gun data. It's irrelevant.

Tom wants to buy a gun from Brian. Tom is checked and cleared to buy the gun.

It could be done very much like a drivers license actually. No check needs even be run every time. No body checks your license every time you drive a car. If you become prohibited, you must turn in your gun card. Until then, anyone who has the cards may buy and sell and will, no checks of any kind. That's just as "universal" and getting it done every time. If the gun grabbers were really scared but still willing to compromise (yeah right), there could simply be an 800 number to call, enter the persons gun card number and get a "valid" or "invalid".

I don't support UBCs but I do see how it could be done without registration.

Obviously, there'd be plenty of folks who'd simply ignore the whole system but that exists with every system. There's people who own and fly airplanes without a license.

[Spats McGee]

Actually, Brian, that system merely changes it from registration of guns to registration of gun owners.

Is that really any better?

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

Actually, Brian, that system merely changes it from registration of guns to registration of gun owners.



Is that really any better?

I wouldn't be in favor of either but if I had to pick, yeah, I'd say it's better. You're registered as a potential owner, no saying whether you actual do or don't own any, or how many, or what they are.

[Tom Servo]

You're registered as a potential owner, no saying whether you actual do or don't own any, or how many, or what they are.

Yeah, but I'd rather we didn't have it either way, and I don't see anything good of accepting it.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

As the NRA is aware (talked to the NRA fellows involved), the recording of phone calls on 4473s by the NSA probably constitutes an illegal record of such. Hello - drone!!

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

I wouldn't be in favor of either but if I had to pick, yeah, I'd say it's better. You're registered as a potential owner, no saying whether you actual do or don't own any, or how many, or what they are.

We can agree that neither of us would be in favor of either kind of registration, but I have to disagree that "owner registration" is any better than "gun registration." Every US citizen is a "potential owner," as are several other classes of folks. I can't put much stock in the idea that registration (of gun owners) as "not saying whether you actually do or don't own any," as I can't see non-owners jumping through the hoops necessary to register as a potential owner of something they don't have.

Even if we overlook that part for just a moment, I have some troubles on the enforceability side of the equation. I see owner registration as unenforceable as against prohibited persons (A5, Haynes v. U.S, etc.). Two results that I see:

(a) a non-prohibited person caught buying a gun without having registered as a potential owner becomes a felon; but
(b) a felon caught buying a gun without having registered as a potential owner:

(i) may be convicted of being a felon in possession; but
(ii) cannot be convicted for failing to register.

That violates my "Bad Guys First" rule. You know, the one that says, "You want to take away my guns? Bad Guys First!"

[SHE3PDOG]

I just read an article about NYC 5 round mag limit for longarms. I think that could realistically get pushed back under the Heller case due to the common use of longarms with the capability to hold more than 5 rounds.

As for the CA CC stuff, a similar legal battle was just fought in IL and won. I don't see why the same principles that were used there couldn't apply to CA. Perhaps I am naive, but I would gladly donate to any organization that showed a real possibility of getting these laws removed.

I do think that a lot of the other suggestions are a little over the top, but maybe if we continue to chisel away at the issue, we can gain some traction for other stuff that seems a little unrealistic right now.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Spats Mcgee

That violates my "Bad Guys First" rule. You know, the one that says, "You want to take away my guns? Bad Guys First!"

No disagreement, in principle, but we already have that situation in a number of laws anyway and the concept has been upheld in court.

Consider also NY State's current handgun permit system. I'm not only registered as an "potential" owner, I'm registered as an ACTUAL owner with the exact and only permissible handguns listed by serial number on my permit. It is illegal for me to so much as HANDLE (possess) someone else's handguns, say nothing of fire them.

I would much rather we had a system that was something along the lines of an endorsement on my driver's license that simply showed that I was eligible to possess firearms.

Since we're clearly on the "dream road" here anyway, my suggestion would be to simply have ALL non-prohibited persons have the endorsement. You don't have to ask for it, you can decline it if you are essentially a conscientious objector.

What I'd much rather do is have a system that actually complied with both the NY Civil Rights law and the COTUS but how far do we want to go down the dream road? We certainly know that's never going to happen.

[44 AMP]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Given the durability of guns, I wouldn't be surprised if most guns in this country were never subject to background checks.

Right there, Tom, they got ya! Background check on the gun.

What is a background check on a gun going to tell anyone? New gun, what dealer has it? We already know that. Used gun? When/where made, what dealer shipped to, who was the original purchaser? Maybe. But likely nothing of much use.

Any gun made and sold before 1968 doesn't even require a serial number. Gun dealers were not Federally licensed before then, either. There are no records in any accessible system about ANY of those guns, unless they have passed through a dealer since then, and records of those are at each dealer, or warehoused by the Fed (for dealers who have gone out of business). Hardly anything that could be checked, and not in any form that can be used without a lot of effort.

I believe there is a way to do it without "checking the gun". Its just not what the anti's want.

[ClydeFrog]

I disagree about any new firearm or concealed carry law/statue affecting "millions".
If a medical doctor or mental health professional or court official formally states you can't own, carry, use or maintain a firearm or ammunition, then you should not be allowed to get a hunting license or valid concealed carry license(gun permit).

As discussed at length(mostly directly after Sandy Hook 2012), mental health is not the issue. It's allowing people with violent or psychotic tendencies access/ownership of firearms.

Stricter controls & better oversight by mental health workers would keep events like the Chris Kyle murder or Giffords shooting from occurring in the first place.

[Tom Servo]

Stricter controls & better oversight by mental health workers would keep events like the Chris Kyle murder or Giffords shooting from occurring in the first place.

Are we sure? Phrased that way, it sounds like we're promising that such measures would prevent future violence. We really can't do that any more than the other side can promise a reduction from tighter controls on guns.

I do want to see a greater emphasis placed on early diagnosis and improved mental-health care in this country. It may help prevent some people from acting out in a violent manner, but I can't make promises.

[MTT TL]

I do want to see a greater emphasis placed on early diagnosis and improved mental-health care in this country. It may help prevent some people from acting out in a violent manner, but I can't make promises.

OK

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4417964.html

The Obama administration has made mental health a focus of efforts to reduce gun violence. Gun control legislation stalled in Congress after the Newtown shooting one year ago Saturday.

See, if only the other side had played nice we would have had mental health reform. The fist part of that paragraph being a complete fabrication.

[Tom Servo]

Yes, that's encouraging, but that money's not going to go far. I worry that this will be a one-time thing, and the issue will be forgotten later. Even if the current administration were to place a greater focus on the matter, the next one might very well reverse that course. Let's not forget that President Reagan (oh, how everybody reveres that man...) repealed the Mental Health Systems Act less than a month after being in office, and less than a year after it had been signed.

A year ago, we were supposed to have a conversation about a whole host of issues. We were promised that by the administration. With almost comical speed, everything got thrown out the window but gun control. Why? Because gun control makes for easier slogans and 10-second soundbites. Mental health is complex and not so easy an issue to discuss on talk shows.

[Grizz12]

There is nothing you can do to prevent bad people from hurting good people, NOTHING!

There is a high number of LEO's who have been charged with domestic violence and they still have the "right" to carry. They pass mental health exams and still go nut like the cop in Ca. earlier this year.

This isn't an attack on LOE's, its pointing out that even after going through all the exams, bad guys still get passed and allowed to carry.

As it is now, background checks have done nothing to prevent crime or lower the crime rate, look at Chicago gun crimes

[Madcap_Magician]

On the universal background checks, there IS a way to do it that does not involve registration of firearms or owners.

Compile a list of all the people who can't legally own guns, make the FBI responsible for maintaining it and making it available to to FFL dealers, then make the FFL dealers responsible for searching it.

This would be similar to a wanted poster database. The FBI is only responsible for maintaining it, not running searches in it. The dealer is the only one who ever sees the buyer information.

[carguychris]

Compile a list of all the people who can't legally own guns, make the FBI responsible for maintaining it and making it available to to FFL dealers, then make the FFL dealers responsible for searching it.

Even if I deliberately set aside the civil libertarian arguments against this idea, there are still serious problems with such a "Master List".

Compiling such a list would be a herculean task, if it's even feasible at all. There are serious privacy concerns. The list would be rife with errors and would require constant policing, creating a never-ending financial drain on the agencies responsible for maintaining it. A large part of the list would be superfluous because not every American adult owns or buys guns.

Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, the list would do nothing to address the 68 GCA ownership qualifications that require a self-certification by the prospective purchaser- most significantly, is one a user of controlled substances? IOW with the Master List, some type of background check would still be required!

Compared to the Master List concept, one major advantage of the licensing idea is that submission to the process would remain voluntary to some degree; there would be no effort wasted on people who don't wish to purchase a firearm.

[MTT TL]

Let's not forget that President Reagan (oh, how everybody reveres that man...) repealed the Mental Health Systems Act less than a month after being in office, and less than a year after it had been signed.

If you are talking about crazed mass shooters than the net effect would likely have been zero. Most of the crazed mass shooters come from economically well off backgrounds and are not normally impoverished in any way.

[leadcounsel]

"Repeal" requires a realistic chance at a majority vote in the legislative body in question. Where is the realistic chance of that happening, in what body/state?

As I said, the only way they could possibly fall is if they're struck down by a court. That takes years. Even if we win, the current political/judicial dynamic simply sees them slightly rewritten to comply in theory with the exact specifics of the judicial decision but to still make for impossible circumstances in reality.

I disagree. We see wild swings in Congress and the POTUS every few years or so... the right combination of leaders can sign in some serious pro-gun laws, and tame the ATF quite a lot. And I doubt it would cost much political capital, because none of the fear mongering would come true.

Repealing 922, gun and ammo imports, SBR and SBS laws, would have nearly zero increases in crime and would be HUGE for the economy and gun rights.

We've had some amazing (and close) wins in courts for gun rights. But equally important are the laws that Congress and POTUS enact, or let expire. But for GW Bush appointing several SCOTUS justices, we would have likely LOST some or all of the recent challenges to gun rights in the high courts. But for GW Bush allowing the AWB expire, few of us would have ample 11+ round mags and all the other evil guns that were impacted.

I'm not trying to get political, just pointing out that the Legislative and Executive branches are critically important, and with the right timing and coordinated efforts, we stand to gain serious ground. I predict that the tides are turning in our favor, and 2014, followed by the right POTUS in 2018, might be the right time for us!

We've seen pro-gun folks so outraged in Colorado that they kicked out two antis this year!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Let's avoid us becoming specifically political.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Have to go now but here's an interesting graphic of gun law changes this year.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...wn.html?ref=us

Mostly positive but in progun states, negative in the usual suspects.

Some are controversial - Colorado's recalls.

GEM

[Tom Servo]

Compile a list of all the people who can't legally own guns, make the FBI responsible for maintaining it and making it available to to FFL dealers, then make the FFL dealers responsible for searching it.

Um, guys? We already have that. The NICS system is supposed to be filling that role. Too bad it's so poorly implemented.

That said, we're back to the notion that mandating background checks will have much of an effect. Lanza was deterred from buying one because of the check, so he resorted to murder and theft. There are already laws against those things.

NPR had an interview today with John Morse, the Colorado senator who got recalled in October. He was unrepentant, claiming that by passing a UBC law, he'd "solved the problem." Next time there's a shooting done by someone who went around the system, they'll decide they didn't solve the problem enough. Then we'll have calls for more restrictive laws, which will also fail to solve the problem enough.

There's an endgame here, and it has little to do with reducing violence.

[MTT TL]

Not only that but with most of these mass shooters the first felony they commit is murder. Their mental illnesses are normally established and well known but not that unusual.

There's an endgame here, and it has little to do with reducing violence.

For other murders the vast majority fall into one of two categories of either familial crime or drug gang crime. Violent sex crimes taking a third place.

[Jo6pak]

I'd really like to see national CCW reciprocity. I tour a lot on the motorcycle and just don't want to worry about which states I can carry in or not.

I'd also like to see WI law changed to allow the ownership of non-firing replica firearms.

[sigcurious]

I'd like to see my state (NV) actually come up with penalties for local jurisdictions that violate the preemption regarding firearms law. Similarly, I think for many areas getting preemption on the books with limited to no grandfathering would at least clear up a lot of confusion and make future changes or resistance to changes easier for the people of the state(s).