The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 20, 2012, 03:39 PM   #1
gaseousclay
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 869
are there any sensible gun regulations you would support?

I think it's universally accepted that the recent tragedy has given a lot of us pause. on the one hand, we dislike the idea of our gun rights being tampered with, on the other hand, I've come across a lot of reasonable ideas to enhance existing gun laws. I'm curious what you guys think.

for example, is it unreasonable to require new gun owners to take a mandatory safety course and test to prove their capability with a firearm? the way I see it, it's not that different from the laws surrounding car ownership. you have to take a test and demonstrate you know the rules of driving and most importantly, safety. Is it unreasonable to regulate private sales, so that gun buyers would have to go through a business with a legally held FFL? Is it unreasonable to require new gun owners to have some sort of safe or means of safely storing their firearms out of reach of others?
gaseousclay is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 03:47 PM   #2
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 3,129
You must take a test and prove your fitness to operate a motor vehicle on PUBLIC roads, you do NOT have to have a license to drive on private property or to OWN a motor vehicle. Hence I find that analogy wrong. No private sales?-you don't have to go through a dealer to sell a motor vehicle.
You can make your own wine and liquor for home consumption up to a certain limit. Restrictions on where and when firearms can be shot or displayed in public are one thing, what you do behind your own walls and on your property are another. "Reasonable" in the gun debate is always defined by the other side and it's always what THEY want.
SIGSHR is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 03:49 PM   #3
TheBigO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2010
Location: Bellingham
Posts: 122
I would agree with having to take a test, but I am a law abiding citizen.

Why change things to make my life more difficult? It does nothing to keep guns away from people that are already breaking the law. Same as when people get a DUI and have their drivers license taken away, they still get in a car and drive.

When proposing new rules and laws the people will follow them who are not law breakers. Its is a bigger issue then more regulations, unless people take responsibility for themselves and hold others accountable then nothing will change.

Everyone hoping that others will do what is right will get us no where
__________________
TheBigOlof.com
You Tube Page
Gun Reviews and Stuff
TheBigO is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 03:52 PM   #4
Punisher_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 136
I think those are reasonable expectations. I hope those will be the topic in Congress versus banning this or that firearm. If the criminals are said to be using stolen guns they must be the guns lying on the floor in the closet and not in a gun safe. Unless of course they stole the whole safe. The least loved of your version will be the FFL Dealer purchase part because of private sales and gun shows. Some people want to buy under the radar so it won't be tracked in the future for whatever reason.
Punisher_1 is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 03:55 PM   #5
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
A safety course would do nothing but add cost somewhere whether it be a state/federal or private citizen, it does not address or stop people from committing atrocities. Driving is a not a right, and even though people are tested people still drive poorly and retain their licenses.

Requiring use of FFLs for private transfers not only over steps how involved the federal government can be in commerce but again does little to address or prevent future incidents.

I've yet to see an inexpensive safe/RSC that would come close to stopping more than a curious child. Requiring such measures would only create a financial barrier to firearms ownership if the idea was to prevent a determined person from being able to defeat the safe and obtain the firearms in a limited amount of time. If the standard were set that it would not create a large financial burden, the standard of container would fail to keep a determined person from defeating the container.

Having a safe is a good idea but mandating it is not.

All of the suggestions may seem reasonable on their face, but they are not as they do little to actually address or prevent the issues at hand.
sigcurious is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 04:09 PM   #6
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Lanza was unable to buy weapons, and used weapons he stole from his mother.

Aurora shooter was a PhD candidate.

How would safety training have prevented either of those incidents?
MLeake is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 04:12 PM   #7
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaseousclay
. . . . for example, is it unreasonable to require new gun owners to take a mandatory safety course and test to prove their capability with a firearm?. . . .
Yes, it is. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamantal individual right. If we can't have literacy tests or ask for ID for voting, why should we test capabilities for gun ownership? Besides, felons won't be required to take a safety course. Why should I?

If I don't pass the test, am I going to have to go take training at my own expense in order to qualify to get a handgun? What if I can't afford it? Does that mean I don't get my 2A rights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gaseousclay
. . . . the way I see it, it's not that different from the laws surrounding car ownership. you have to take a test and demonstrate you know the rules of driving and most importantly, safety. . . .
Not to own a car you don't. A 9-year-old who happens to find a big ol' wad of cash can buy a car with no ID, no background check, no license, no nothing. Provided that the child stays off of the public roadways, no license is required (at least in Arkansas). Besides, there's no constitutional right to keep and bear cars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gaseousclay
. . . . Is it unreasonable to regulate private sales, so that gun buyers would have to go through a business with a legally held FFL?
Yes, it is. That only puts a burden, both in terms of dollars and hassle, on those that lawfully obtain their firearms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gaseousclay
. . . .Is it unreasonable to require new gun owners to have some sort of safe or means of safely storing their firearms out of reach of others?
Yes. Again, this places a financial burden on lawful owners, but does nothing to unlawful owners. A single mom working 2 jobs, living in a shady neighborhood, and barely making it by has as much right to defend herself as anyone else. So you'd propose that she should have to buy a safe on top of the expense of a firearm? Even if we're only talking about trigger locks that come with many (if not all) pistols, would you require her to keep it locked up at night?

Training is a good idea. Safety is a good idea. Safes are a good idea. Mandating them is 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 20, 2012, 04:21 PM   #8
DFrame
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2008
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 451
I think making state law supreme and denying local municipalities the right to opt out or make their laws MORE restrictive is a good idea.
__________________
Mark Lane to William Buckley: "Have you ever referred to Jessee Jackson as an ignoramus?"
Buckley: "If I didn't, I should have"
DFrame is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 04:28 PM   #9
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,282
Quote:
for example, is it unreasonable to require new gun owners to take a mandatory safety course and test to prove their capability with a firearm? the way I see it, it's not that different from the laws surrounding car ownership. you have to take a test and demonstrate you know the rules of driving and most importantly, safety.
It depends on the intent of the safety course. If the safety course/test is designed to actually insure people are safe and are not unreasonably burdensome (and expensive) then I'd be ok. I shoot a lot on a public range, and the yayhoo factor - even after a mandatory safety video - can be shocking.

However, if its real intent is to keep law abiding, able bodied citizens from firearms then no way.

Translation: if its a program designed by the state of Texas I'd be ok. If its a program designed by the state of Illinois I'd be gravely concerned.
mayhaps a requirement to prove you've taken the course, but no test required.


Quote:
Is it unreasonable to regulate private sales, so that gun buyers would have to go through a business with a legally held FFL?
I'm ok with this in a big way. I don't like loopholes where people can get around the standard NCIS background check.


Quote:
Is it unreasonable to require new gun owners to have some sort of safe or means of safely storing their firearms out of reach of others?
Devil is in the details on this one. How is it verified? Whats the minimum level here - something locked or a full blown bolt down safe? If someone can use this to enter the residence to verify without a warrant thats civil war.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 04:30 PM   #10
musher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2005
Posts: 437
The way you framed the question is loaded.

If you're asking whether folks support reasonable gun regulations, then anyone who says 'no' is by definition unreasonable.

If you're asking what is reasonable, then you should evaluate the proposed restriction by asking

1. Does it serve a compelling government interest (a necessary or crucial interest)
2. Is the restriction narrowly tailored to meet that interest.
3. Is it the least restrictive means for meeting that interest.

Notice that "reducing access to guns" or any other rephrasing of an intent to weaken a fundamental right is NOT a compelling interest.

As far as I can tell, none of the "reasonable" restrictions that "reasonable" people seem to be floating would pass the test--not even close.
musher is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 04:30 PM   #11
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,282
Quote:
The least loved of your version will be the FFL Dealer purchase part because of private sales and gun shows. Some people want to buy under the radar so it won't be tracked in the future for whatever reason.
Those are probably the ones who should be tracked.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 04:30 PM   #12
AKsRul.e
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 234




no new laws!!



Enforce what we have.
AKsRul.e is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 04:34 PM   #13
ferrarif1fan
Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2009
Posts: 64
I think everyone here has proved beyond a doubt that there should be no changes to any of the current laws whatsoever. They will bring about no positive change regarding the recent tragedies, so it's pointless.

So, when your child leaves each morning for school, or goes to the mall, or goes to see a movie...kiss them like you may not see them again...cause you may not. But rest assured that your guns and your second amendment rights are safe and sound.

Just wanted to throw a new twist on the topic.
ferrarif1fan is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 04:39 PM   #14
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,160
I didn't say that there should be no changes. I emailed my congressfolks and told them it was time to get rid of the Fish-In-A-Barrel Zones.
__________________
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 20, 2012, 04:40 PM   #15
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,282
For the sake of argument:
Quote:
A safety course would do nothing but add cost somewhere whether it be a state/federal or private citizen, it does not address or stop people from committing atrocities.
It would be an excellent way to help prevent accidents however. Again, I've seen enough yayhooism in this area that any faith I had in the common sense of other people has been shattered.

Quote:
Requiring use of FFLs for private transfers not only over steps how involved the federal government can be in commerce but again does little to address or prevent future incidents.
It does however, help to make sure crazies who would fail a background check can't circumvent the system.

Quote:
I've yet to see an inexpensive safe/RSC that would come close to stopping more than a curious child. Requiring such measures would only create a financial barrier to firearms ownership if the idea was to prevent a determined person from being able to defeat the safe and obtain the firearms in a limited amount of time. If the standard were set that it would not create a large financial burden, the standard of container would fail to keep a determined person from defeating the container.
Again, the strong argument can be made here that you're not trying to protect from a thief, but a child. I'd agree otherwise and would argue this should be part of a safety. It would be under the section "Don't be an Idiot. If you have firearms and kids, lock up your firearms (and if they're rotten your kids too)."

Quote:
Having a safe is a good idea but mandating it is not.
I can see your point.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 04:43 PM   #16
musher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2005
Posts: 437
As a "for example" lets take your proposal to require gun training.

I suppose you could propose the "compelling" interest is to reduce firearms deaths/injuries. Problem is, that there are many other sources of injury and death that FAR outweigh the risks associated with firearms. Backyard pools, automobiles, etc. How can reduction of firearms accidents be a compelling interest for the federal government while larger sources of mortality/injury are not?

Would this be narrowly tailored? Nope. Training would do nothing to reduce intentional injuries/deaths by firearms. It might even increase them by making everyone a better shot, eh? It seems related to accidental deaths/injuries, but those are at an all time low and have been decreasing pretty steadily.

Is this the least intrusive measure? Nope, firearms accidents have been decreasing for decades and continue to decrease. Why? Voluntary safety programs, more access to firearms leading to more familiarity, the phase of the moon, who knows? It seems likely that a failure to do anything will not affect the trend and that firearms accidents will decrease to some minimum level even if nothing is done. Doing nothing seems less intrusive than mandating training.
musher is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 04:45 PM   #17
Punisher_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 136
Well I don't think we'll have to worry about compromise or what we want they will legislate what they want and we'll have to eat it. Logic won't work in this situation because they have an agenda and a tragedy to fuel it. It's how the government works. They'll actually come up with millions of dollars (borrowed obviously) to implement whatever they legislate.
Punisher_1 is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 04:46 PM   #18
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,824
If instead of a NICS check i could pay a reasonable fee for a personal license that got me out of NICS checks and dealing with FFLs I would, even if the process was more in depth.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 04:57 PM   #19
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1,664
Quote:
So, when your child leaves each morning for school, or goes to the mall, or goes to see a movie...kiss them like you may not see them again...cause you may not.
Remove every firearm from the face of the earth and the above would still be true.
DaleA is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 05:06 PM   #20
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1,664
Musher post 10 says it for me.

Who could POSSIBLY not support something 'SENSIBLE' or something 'REASONABLE'?

No offense to the original poster, really, I just want to NOT let folks write their own definition for words like 'reasonable' or 'sensible' or 'common-sense'.

Wouldn't you like to eat 'good' food? How about watching 'entertaining' movies? Or drive 'fun' cars? Are you willing to let ME define all those terms for you?
DaleA is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 05:17 PM   #21
iraiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2012
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 875
Quote:
for example, is it unreasonable to require new gun owners to take a mandatory safety course and test to prove their capability with a firearm? the way I see it, it's not that different from the laws surrounding car ownership. you have to take a test and demonstrate you know the rules of driving and most importantly, safety. Is it unreasonable to regulate private sales, so that gun buyers would have to go through a business with a legally held FFL? Is it unreasonable to require new gun owners to have some sort of safe or means of safely storing their firearms out of reach of others?
I reject the premise of your argument, your comparisons do not take into account that the right to keep and bear arms is specifically outlined in the Bill of Rights, in the Second Amendment.

Car ownership is not a right and is not in the constitution, the right to keep and bear arms clearly is.

While I encourage all new gun owners to be properly trained on the safe and legal operation of their firearms, I will flatly reject any government requirements that must be met in order to simply exercise any of our rights.
__________________
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
iraiam is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 05:19 PM   #22
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,282
Again for argument's sake.

Quote:
I suppose you could propose the "compelling" interest is to reduce firearms deaths/injuries. Problem is, that there are many other sources of injury and death that FAR outweigh the risks associated with firearms. Backyard pools, automobiles, etc. How can reduction of firearms accidents be a compelling interest for the federal government while larger sources of mortality/injury are not?
That’s not how such a test works. Would the state have a compelling in insuring safety and prevention of lethal accidents? I could argue that one to a judge. However, is the standard compelling state interest now? That seems far higher than what would be needed but lets go with that.

Quote:
Would this be narrowly tailored? Nope.
Yep. It’s a simple requirement with (arguably) a minimal cost to a specific issue, prevention of accidents. Now again the devil would be in the details.

Quote:
Training would do nothing to reduce intentional injuries/deaths by firearms. It might even increase them by making everyone a better shot, eh? It seems related to accidental deaths/injuries, but those are at an all time low and have been decreasing pretty steadily.
Come on that’s just wrong on its face. The class proposed was a safety class.

Quote:
Is this the least intrusive measure?
-More intrusive would be X hours of training or identical training to a police officer. Indeed the standard could be argued that “as militia” you are acting as a badged officer and are required to have the same training standard therein (or worse a limitary standard).
-More intrusive would be physical checks of your household, physical fitness requirements, check of your accident history, and letters from your priest that you are a safe individual.

Quote:
Nope, firearms accidents have been decreasing for decades and continue to decrease. Why? Voluntary safety programs, more access to firearms leading to more familiarity, the phase of the moon, who knows?
You just admitted the current voluntary programs may be reducing accidents. Therefore, a mandatory one would be even better.
OOPS! 
zincwarrior is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 05:20 PM   #23
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
It would be an excellent way to help prevent accidents however. Again, I've seen enough yayhooism in this area that any faith I had in the common sense of other people has been shattered.
I've lived in Chicago and California both places that require "safety" training to own handguns. The ranges seemed like the same amount of yahoo behavior as I see in my current locale which has no safety requirements. I also see presumably licensed drivers drive like yahoos all the time. Any minor amount of training does not ensure anything but that someone is aware of the basics enough to pass a test, or worse, is presumed aware of the basics and that they will follow them just because they took a class or read a pamphlet.

Quote:
It does however, help to make sure crazies who would fail a background check can't circumvent the system.
The CT shooter circumvented the system, the columbine shooters circumvented the system. If someone is determined to get a firearm they will find a way.

Quote:
Again, the strong argument can be made here that you're not trying to protect from a thief, but a child.
So the answer is to force all firearms owners to purchase safes regardless if they have children or children ever enter their house lawfully? It's not a very strong argument for federal level regulation when it only applies to some people. Even then there are other ways of securing firearms which do not require the investment that a proper safe does. Even a proper safe is not guaranteed to keep out determined older/teenage children, as they would have multiple avenues and opportunities to defeat a safe that a thief would not.

Quote:
If instead of a NICS check i could pay a reasonable fee for a personal license that got me out of NICS checks and dealing with FFLs I would, even if the process was more in depth.
There are already regulations in place at the federal level that allow for exemption from NICS check if your state's carry license/permit procedure is up to certain standards.
sigcurious is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 05:29 PM   #24
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaseousclay
for example, is it unreasonable to require new gun owners to take a mandatory safety course and test to prove their capability with a firearm?
If the problem is random screwballs shooting up schools, what would this proposal possibly accomplish toward alleviating the problem? Don't forget, Connecticut already requires firearms safety training to get a carry permit OR an "eligibility certificate" (I think that's what it's called). The shooter at Sandy Hook didn't own the guns he used -- and he WAS trained.

Next suggestion?

Quote:
Is it unreasonable to regulate private sales, so that gun buyers would have to go through a business with a legally held FFL?
Private sales of handguns in Connecticut have to be approved by the State Police even if they don't go through an FFL. Private sales of long guns don't, but many people in Connecticut don't know that and call them in anyway. Nancy Lanza's guns were ALL purchased legally.

But, again ... Adam Lanza didn't buy any of the guns he used. He stole them from his mother.

Next suggestion?

Quote:
Is it unreasonable to require new gun owners to have some sort of safe or means of safely storing their firearms out of reach of others?
It has been fairly reliably reported that Nancy Lanza kept her guns under lock and key, even though Connecticut law didn't require it because she had no children under the age of 16 in the house.

Now what?

Your "reasonable" suggestions were all in place and failed utterly to accomplish anything at all. The most reasonable thing we could do is to repeal about 90 percent of the gun laws already on the books and allow people to take responsibility for their own protection. If schools want to act in loco parentis, then the schools had better accept responsibility for protecting our kids as well at school as we do at home and in the streets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior
Translation: if its a program designed by the state of Texas I'd be ok. If its a program designed by the state of Illinois I'd be gravely concerned.
Actually, a lot of folks in other states (including me, and I'm originally from Texas) find Texas' requirements to be obscenely costly and burdensome -- especially the requirement to undergo the live fire course again every time you renew your permit. Seriously -- what's the TOTAL investment, in both dollars and hours, to get a first carry permit in Texas? Is that fair? Should you have to invest that before you are allowed to exercise a Constitutional RIGHT?

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; December 20, 2012 at 05:36 PM.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 05:34 PM   #25
shootniron
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Posts: 1,147
NO.

This is all smoke and mirrors as these guys always get around any law that inhibits them accomplishing their goal.

Why would I create another hoop for ME to have to jump through when it will have no effect on anyone...other than me?

Last edited by shootniron; December 20, 2012 at 09:57 PM.
shootniron 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 11:14 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 0.15846 seconds with 9 queries