The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 21, 2012, 09:44 PM   #76
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Here is my proposal:

1. Decriminalize marijuana. Tax and regulate it. Go from spending $40B per year on enforcement to making $30B per year from taxes and licensing fees. In the same stroke, rob gangs of black market profits and incentives, reducing violence.

2. Let the thousands of non-violent offenders in jail and prison for marijuana offenses out, freeing up thousands and thousands of cells.

3. Use some of the net $70B per year toward prosecution of violent offenders; use the newly emptied cells to hold them. Ban early releases of repeat, violent offenders, since we should have adequate prison space.

4. Use some of the net $70B per year toward mental health care.

I find this approach to be common sense and reasonable. Sadly, I do not think it would fly. Antis would be unhappy that it did nothing about guns. Many on our side would have conniptions about legalizing pot.

Too bad, though, because I really think it's a good idea.
MLeake is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 10:58 PM   #77
leveled
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2012
Posts: 5
Some suggestions

Make a person responsible for the guns they own. If they are found negligent to keep them out of the wrong hands they can be charged as accessories to any crime or accident committed with that weapon. A person should know the serial numbers and type of weapons they own so if there is a theft it can be reported to the law. This will mean gun owners will need to inventory and lock their weapons up keep them out of kids reach etc.

Background checks are the norm now so make them necessary even for private transactions. Those are two common sense approaches to keep everyone safer.

I'm against limiting the number of firearms one can own and the type they can own. The constitution is the law of the land. People who want to ban guns are violating our civil rights. Home inspections, licenses and training requirements should be out of the question.

The way some are debating the topic is quite stupid as to ban all handguns would require a repeal of the second amendment. Our fore fathers had the wisdom to make the process very difficult.
leveled is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 11:00 PM   #78
12GaugeShuggoth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 534
Well, considering that I don't support most laws or regulations in general (and more specifically the way in which most laws/regulations are enforced), regardless of the gun issue; I'd have to say no to supporting new firearms restrictions.

While the supposed goal of those restrictions might sound good to some, they wouldn't actually accomplish said goal; which in this case is the prevention or at least reduction of these mass killings. The all too easy case-in-point, look at how well anti-drug laws have worked. And since drinking and driving is illegal, we all know that there are no alcohol related traffic deaths..........

Gun restrictions don't prevent gun related violence, any more than drug restrictions prevent drug related violence. If you want results, work on making people smarter (and no I do not mean educated). Better yet, try to instill a sense of morality in them......good luck with that. It would be awesome if we had no "need" for guns from a self defense perspective, but while we're at it we might as well be looking out for unicorns and searching for pots of gold at the end of rainbows.

Meanwhile in the real world, there will still be robberies, murders, rapes, carjackings, bombings............and yes there will still be the kinds of mass shootings we've been seeing too often in the news recently. Make it 100% illegal to purchase a firearm and all of those things are still going to happen. It's not pretty, but the truth rarely is.
__________________
---Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.---

---Enlightenment is the ability to take infinite pains---
MOLON LABE
12GaugeShuggoth is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 11:05 PM   #79
Ghost1958
Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 86
The flaw to the private transaction background is its not enforceable. Unless your talking firearms made at the time of the making of the law.
Retroactive would be impossible. Ive bought and sold guns individual to individual for decades. Traded, given, been given firearms. I couldnt possibly remember who they all were i traded sold etc with.
All one has to to do circumvent the private background even for a slightly older gun in question would be to say I have that gun for years I dont remember who I got it from. End of story.
Ghost1958 is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 11:58 PM   #80
colbad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2012
Posts: 325
To the question of how I define "fail to secure".

I would define this as being "any firearm that was not under the immediate control of the owner that would permit unauthorized use".

Certainly the ideal situation is to put the firearm in some type of lockable container that denies unauthorized access as well as theft. Yes, I know that given enough time and resources any container can eventually be defeated, but that is not the point. The point is reasonable care to keep it from being stolen or used without authorization. Keeping it from being stolen is admittedly harder to prevent than unauthorized use w/o having a safe, but most any lockable box.....even a suitcase is better than the dresser drawer. However, I would rather have it stolen with a trigger lock than in a ready to use mode.

I recognize that not all can afford a giant safe. However, if you can afford a gun you can afford a trigger lock. Almost all new guns come with a free trigger lock, but use is legally not mandatory. Some will argue that the trigger lock makes the gun not readily accessible. This argument misses the point of "not under the immediate control of the owner". If you think you need your gun under your pillow at night, go for it. However, when you leave in the morning take it with you, put it in a safe/lock box or put a trigger lock on it.

Just as there are penalties such as "reckless endangerment" for improper discharge of a firearm and other activities that endanger the public, the same can be extended to incidents where firearms are left unsecured. Not real hard to craft some legislative language here.

I think unless the shooting public voluntarily recognizes that owning a gun also requires a means of preventing theft, law makers will make the decisions for us. I personally feel that a safe is mandatory and have bought a few less guns in order to buy the safe. I really can't think of a situation why one would not use a trigger lock it the firearm was not in their immediate possession and did not have a lockable container.
colbad is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 12:02 AM   #81
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
So you think a burglar can't overcome a cable lock? Seriously?

Those locks are more for protection against curious children than for protection against criminals.

A bolt cutter makes extremely short work of them.
MLeake is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 12:16 AM   #82
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,935
I've read two pages of this, and I haven't seen a single gun related proposal that would have stopped Newtown. Or several of the other high profile spree killings that have made the press.

The real issue is with the people. And that's a lot harder to deal with. So politicians are taking it out on guns.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 12:18 AM   #83
colbad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2012
Posts: 325
MLeake--if a simple cable lock was used in CT there is a good chance 20 more kids would be alive today. Given enough time and resources any mechanism can be defeated. The point is reasonableness. A cable is more reasonable making a firearm more difficult or immediately ready to use than nothing.

Last edited by colbad; December 22, 2012 at 12:30 AM.
colbad is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 12:35 AM   #84
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
You think a simple cable lock would stop a 20-something who could use a computer and manipulate mechanical equipment (an AR, for example)?

Beyond the fact that, as a practical matter, cable locks would do nothing to deter a halfway competent thief, there is another issue - why should the owner of a gun be held to a higher standard than the owner of a car?

If a person comes onto your property, finds your keys, and steals your car, the DA does not charge you with failing to secure a motor vehicle.

Cars kill a lot more people every year than do guns.

Personally, I can afford (and have) a pretty solid gun safe. I believe in securing weapons not under my immediate control. I do not believe that failing to do so should make me responsible for the actions of a thief, legally nor morally.

And I think you are far too eager to appease unreasonable people, who ultimately cannot be appeased.
MLeake is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 12:50 AM   #85
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,401
Quote:
I've read two pages of this, and I haven't seen a single gun related proposal that would have stopped Newtown
That's because none would have. The call for gun control as a solution is completely disingenuous.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 12:51 AM   #86
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
I cannot believe there are so many here that do not understand the difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILAGE.

the 2A and our WA 1/24 clearly state we have the RIGHT to bear arms for our own self defense. IMHO, any gun law is too many.

Extra time for the use of a gun in a crime is not a gun law. I would agree to stiff penilties for the USE of a firearm in a felony, but not possession. I am also not for all of this "prohibited person" garbage...if the person is a danger to society, lock him/her up, or better yet. execute the violent criminal. If you did, we would never have to worry about that one again.

Remember, Sen Sullivan introduced the "Sullivan Act" to NYS to protect his thugs. Most other gun laws are just Jim Crow laws anyway. We can't have the dregs of society being able to defend themself you know.
hermannr is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 07:00 AM   #87
Punisher_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 136
It's to bad when they wrote the second amendment they didn't add bearing arms equivalent to the government.
Punisher_1 is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 08:21 AM   #88
Sparks1957
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 4, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,471
MLeake's suggestions at the top of this page are good ones. Law enforcement has gotten its priorities all wrong... non-violent offenders should be be lower priority so that jail space can be freed up for the real violent baddies, especially repeat offenders and those using guns to commit felonies.
Sparks1957 is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 08:52 AM   #89
cryogenic419
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 29, 2009
Location: NW Ohio
Posts: 430
I think one of the first things to do is to for judicial system to actually put violent offenders in jail, a sentence with some teeth, not something where they rob a person or a store and only get 6 months for it. There are maximum sentences for crimes committed, why can't we start utilizing that more? Perhaps even raise the amount of money it takes to get out on bail. I say this because in my town we have had 2 situations where:

1. A man was charged with shooting someone, was out on bail while waiting for his next court date and while out managed to get into another incident where he was accused of shooting someone. The guy was eventually convicted for both crimes. 2. An individual had a record that was pretty extensive but had hardly served any time for violent crimes he had been convicted of. He had not been out of prison more than 2 months and got involved in an incident where he shot and killed someone. He was convicted and is currently in prison.

I know there are sentencing limits to crimes, but why on earth would a judge seem to give the minimum amount of time to a violent criminal? I know you can't ask for millions of dollairs for bail, but the individual that was out on bail was out on $10,000. Get a bailbond and it only cost $1000 to get free.

About 2 years back there was a guy that was a convicted felon that was 1. caught with firearms, 2. some of the firearms were converted to machine guns. 9 years is all he was sentenced to.

http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/20...-firearms.html

http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/20...-firearms.html

The guy was no saint, already had a decently long record....and this is the best the court system is going to do? The sad part is I know stories like this are not unique to my town, this kind of thing is happening all across our country.

Would tougher sentences on these crimes have prevented Newtown, most likely not. Would tougher sentences stop other gun related crimes locally...I think it would. Now if tougher sentences across the country were the norm and more criminals were off the streets I think we would see a drastic reduction in gun crimes and deaths. Look, we tried an "assault" weapons ban for 10 years and it did not give us the results they promised it would.

I know the prisons are overcrowded and police forces in some areas are greatly underpowered and undermanned. With a small percentage of the foreign aid we are giving other countries we could give our police forces the resources they need to get the job done effectively. We could build prisons to house the violent criminals so the court systems could effectively sentence them as needed without having to take into consideration whether or not there is room to house them.
cryogenic419 is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 11:33 AM   #90
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by colbad
To the question of how I define "fail to secure".

I would define this as being "any firearm that was not under the immediate control of the owner that would permit unauthorized use". . . .
I have to nitpick just a little. What you have defined is what you would require to be secured, but it does not define "fail to secure."

Quote:
Originally Posted by colbad
. . . .Certainly the ideal situation is to put the firearm in some type of lockable container that denies unauthorized access as well as theft. Yes, I know that given enough time and resources any container can eventually be defeated, but that is not the point. The point is reasonable care to keep it from being stolen or used without authorization. Keeping it from being stolen is admittedly harder to prevent than unauthorized use w/o having a safe, but most any lockable box.....even a suitcase is better than the dresser drawer. However, I would rather have it stolen with a trigger lock than in a ready to use mode.
MLeake already pointed this out, using cars as an example. As a broader proposition, though, why should the owner of private property be held liable for the criminal use of his property, when that property was: (a) stolen from him; and (b) used by some (criminal) third party to commit a crime?

For example, just over three years ago, I got a 1911, a Springfield Arms GI model. I'd wanted a 1911 for about 25 years, but had never gotten around, or gotten the funds together, to get one. I took it out to shoot once, and it shot just like I'd always hoped one would -- beautifully. About 2 or 3 weeks later, I cleaned it, carved a spot in the foam inside the hard case for an extra magazine, and loaded up a couple of magazines with hollow-points. I put a padlock on the case, and tucked it away under my side of the bed. About two days later, on October 30, 2009, the morning before Halloween, as I was just about to leave for work, I remember two things: (a) that it was 7:40 a.m.; and (b) that the edge of the case stuck out from under the edge of the bed just a little. My family and I had lived in that house for ~10 years, with no sign of real trouble in the neighborhood. (There were a few unruly kids, and maybe one or two break-ins within that ~10-year span, but that was about it.)

About three hours later, I got a call from my wife, who said that she thought someone had been inside our house. She had gone in (yes, I know), and couldn't find the gun. I went home and checked out the house (yes, I know). Sure enough, my gun had been stolen, hard case, padlock and all. (Interestingly, that was the only thing the thief (or thieves) took, in spite of several targets of opportunity being in plain sight.) I called the police and reported it immediately. It still has not turned up.

I do not have a clue if it has been used in a crime, but it wouldn't surprise me if it had. (Halloween is a prime night for committing crimes, and I remember thinking, "Whoa, someone's about to totally [insert inappropriate language] up someone else's Halloween.") Why should I be held responsible for whatever crimes have been committed with it? Regardless of whether the steps that I took (locking the case, locking the house, etc.) would be considered "reasonable" by a court, I took no part in the planning, or commission of said crimes, nor did I give permission, or in any way acquiesce in their commission. All I did was own a gun that I left in the house while I was away. I was the victim of a crime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by colbad
. . . . However, when you leave in the morning take it with you, put it in a safe/lock box or put a trigger lock on it. . . . .
I did. Even if I hadn't, though, see above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by colbad
. . . .Just as there are penalties such as "reckless endangerment" for improper discharge of a firearm and other activities that endanger the public, the same can be extended to incidents where firearms are left unsecured. Not real hard to craft some legislative language here. . . . .
As you note, there are already penalties for "reckless endangerment." How is owning a gun, or keeping it in your house, unlocked and outside a safe, when one is not present, "reckless?" Is it really reckless not to predict that one will be the victim of a crime?

Quote:
Originally Posted by colbad
. . . I think unless the shooting public voluntarily recognizes that owning a gun also requires a means of preventing theft, law makers will make the decisions for us. . . .
Why is a gun any different that any other item of personal property in this regard? If I own a chain saw, should I be required to keep it locked so as to avoid having some lunatic steal it and go on a rampage? Or even just an otherwise ordinary guy who decides to kill his ex-wife's new husband? How about lawn mowers, hedge clippers, kitchen knives, gasoline, automobiles, . . . ?

What you are suggesting is called "appeasement." It doesn't work. The pro-gun crowd has been subjected to restriction after restriction. No number of laws will affect the criminal element. They will always be out there, and they will always commit crimes. More appeasement only serves to ensure that their victims are defenseless, and that the anti-gun crowd will continue to cry for more and more restrictions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by colbad
. . . .I personally feel that a safe is mandatory and have bought a few less guns in order to buy the safe. I really can't think of a situation why one would not use a trigger lock it the firearm was not in their immediate possession and did not have a lockable container.
Don't misunderstand me. Gun safes are a good idea. Trigger locks are a good idea. Mandating them and criminal penalties for those who do not use them are not.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 12:31 PM   #91
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 716
Sensible gun regulations...

Id like to know just sensible this "ban" that Biden, and others want will be, because they are pushing for "gun control" by trying to ban certain groups of firearms, but, as history has proven many times, these banned firearms will just turn up on the black market WAY more. Not saying that they will be misused more, but once its banned and not transferable, there will be a black market demand for them.

So, that said, it begs to ask the question... Why isnt it obvious to the masses that the "ban" will have this huge negative effect? (of creating a black market driven off the supply of these types of firearms)
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 12:45 PM   #92
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Maybe we should also regulate Free Speech and Religion, freedom of the press and lets clamp down on the right to a trial... Get all these nasty freedoms out of the way.... Apply this kind of speech to any other right in the public and see what happens....
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 01:09 PM   #93
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,203
Quote:
I think we need to look at this as a negotiation, which it is. What will you give, to get something in return?
What do the gun grabbers bring to the negotiation?

Quote:
It's to bad when they wrote the second amendment they didn't add bearing arms equivalent to the government.
They did. The introductory clause about "well regulated militia". It was used in the USSC "Miller" decision back in the 1930's. That ruling has not been overturned.
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 01:53 PM   #94
8MM Mauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2011
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan
Posts: 510
I would find it acceptable if private sales had to go through an FFL if the person buying did not have a CCW.

Personally I have only ever done private sales to people with a CCW.

I don't see the harm in this, guns are expensive enough that the 20-40 bucks would be a small dent in the purchase price, and it might actually keep guns out of illegal hands.
8MM Mauser is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 01:56 PM   #95
8MM Mauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2011
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan
Posts: 510
Quote:
Why isnt it obvious to the masses that the "ban" will have this huge negative effect?
Because they don't research it. The fact is is that our position is supported by facts and numerous statistics as well as historical precedent. Their side is supported by emotions: it feels good to them; it's vindicating and it gives them closure on this event to feel as though they have taken action. It's a shortsighted and immature viewpoint, but as most people aren't very invested in guns, they don't care enough to get the facts before forming an opinion.
8MM Mauser is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 02:06 PM   #96
Quick Karl
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 36
I repeat, and none of our esteemed calm reasonable representatives have been able to formulate a message that even has a chance of reaching them...

Yet, we're the guys that don't get it!

Amazing how that works.
Quick Karl is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 02:58 PM   #97
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,453
Speak for yourself 8mm. It won't be 20 bucks for me. It'll be 20-30 bucks, and 10% of the value of the firearm. That used Dan Wesson for 3K? Just became close to 3500.

Edit: Although to be fair, I should state that that's the extent of my objections, as long as the people able to perform the NICS check are only FFL holders, or some form of Government employee so that access to the personally identifying information is protected. I don't want my SSN, etc. in the hands of some guy I met once at a gun show, or a swap meet, or so on. A tracking system to backtrack and say so-and-so requested this NICS checks, it was this individual, and we can backtrace the trail to this person who's been arrested for identity theft type of stuff.

The other issue I have with it is Washington State specific. Washington feels that the FFL process can be taxed based on the value of the gun. They basically collect sales tax on transactions they have no right to it on. My brother would have been forced to pay sales tax on his own guns had he used an FFL to mail his guns to himself via FFL- which we've been told by non-lawyers wasn't necessary, but didn't sound worth the risk.

Last edited by JimDandy; December 22, 2012 at 03:14 PM.
JimDandy is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 03:22 PM   #98
Quick Karl
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 36
I think the idea of selling any firearm to complete stranger you know nothing about, at a gun show, or through the anti-gun anti-second-amendment website, backpage, or through the classified section of the anti-gun anti-second-amendment Arizona Republic News Paper (allowed here in AZ), is completely insane.

You could be selling your firearm to a terrorist or a monster like in Newton, and I have NEVER understood how anyone with even half a lick of sense can sit back and be OK with that. If you do it you are worse than irresponsible, period.

It SHOULD be sickening that while on the front page of the anti-gun anti-second-amendment AZ Republic, they condemn firearms, but they are content to MAKE MONEY off of the classified ads that SELL FIREARMS in the back.

Maybe when people start using reality and facts to point out the absurdities going on, instead of worrying about how calm cool and reserved they can appear, we can start making sense to a few folks on the other side...

It's as if our wise leaders are plain stupid.

Last edited by Quick Karl; December 22, 2012 at 03:29 PM.
Quick Karl is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 03:33 PM   #99
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,127
You might also sell terrorists or lunatics things like moving vans, diesel fuel, fertilizer, box cutters, machetes, garbage bags, duct tape, . . .

What makes firearms any different?
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 03:47 PM   #100
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,127
They're different because the antis want to ban them?

Perhaps you think it's nuts to agree to sell a gun to a complete stranger without any background check. That's fine. I'm not interested in arguing over how you want to do your sales. Some folks just feel better if they go through an FFL and get a NICS check on every one. That's OK.

When I first read your post, it kinda sounded, perhaps because I read it too quickly, that you don't think anyone should be allowed to sell a gun to a stranger without a background check or an FFL. My apologies if I was mistaken.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Reply

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 08:55 AM.


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 0.15329 seconds with 7 queries