The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 4, 2013, 11:47 AM   #1
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 406
What do WE want?

Gun opponents have lined up several changes they want to impose, such as:
-Background checks for private gun sales
-Magazine capacity restrictions
-Bans on scary-looking guns
-Etc, all the way up to the big one: round up all guns from the public and melt them

They have not hesitated to try to grab our freedoms. We need to grab back. Gun opponents think theirs is a one way street. It’s not. There is another thread that discusses new laws we can live with. I won't live with any new ones, unless other freedoms are restored.

I know some of you won’t like the idea of making a trade. But if legislation is going to pass anyway (and, no, it’s not a foregone conclusion), we need to get some repeals and reforms of current restrictions in the mix. The items I list below already restrict us.

What do we want? Here’s a start.

At the federal level:
-Extend and enhance definition of “continuous travel” to provide real protection for interstate travel by land, sea, and air
-Repeal bans for trains and buses.
-Repeal bans in post office, VA facilities, park buildings, and all other similar federal facilities and grounds
-Repeal Gun Free School Zones Act
-And the big one: Nationwide constitutional carry everywhere

At the state level (Missouri examples, your state needs will vary)
-Allow concealed carry in all schools, hospitals, polling places, etc. Basically remove most, if not all, of the restrictions in MO 571.107.

Help me out here. I know I’ve left some biggies off the list. Name some more specific legislation that needs to be passed, revised, or repealed.
motorhead0922 is online now  
Old January 4, 2013, 12:03 PM   #2
noelf2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2008
Location: Stafford, VA
Posts: 1,661
Too hypothetical to even warrant serious thought. Some anti-gun politicians think they have a leg up on this one, this time. They are wrong. There will not be a trade, ever, regarding guns and 2A. We can't concede one bit of the 2A to reverse any unconstitutional regs. They will all fall on their own merit, in time.
__________________
Liberty and freedom often offends those who understand neither.
noelf2 is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 12:29 PM   #3
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,267
Realistic:
- Remove suppressors and SBRs from NFA registry

Not so realistic:
- Repeal Hughes amendment
- For this whole debate to go away
- This suggestion from the OP:
Quote:
...the big one: Nationwide constitutional carry everywhere
Not. Gonna. Happen.

OTOH it may have some merit as a "poison pill" to kill other proposals.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is online now  
Old January 4, 2013, 12:50 PM   #4
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
- Remove suppressors and SBRs from NFA registry
I say get rid of the registry except for certain destructive devices like HE hand gernades.

I am also in favor of background checks for private party sales.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 12:57 PM   #5
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 406
Quote:
Not. Gonna. Happen.
I agree Chris. I put it on my list as a counter to "melt them all". Poison Pill, as you say.
motorhead0922 is online now  
Old January 4, 2013, 01:53 PM   #6
Nathan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 1,837
Repeal gun control act of 1968.

Repeal GOPA 1984.

Continue FBI call in instant background check, with improved appeals process on denials. Allow voluntary private sale transfers with some new ATF quick online form. I would use. Some would not.

Allow mail transfers.

Pass laws to enforce mailing privileges.

Pass laws preventing US government personnel to enter arms treaty's, bans or the discussions related to without public vote.

Pass laws to limit state/federal powers to tax gun, ammo, range, hunting sales.

Affirm 2A by repealing carry free zone laws.

Pass law to greatly reduce security for members of congress when within US borders.

Pass laws to make President and Congress respect troops they visit by not disarming them in a war zone!

Make it illegal for LEO to work security in uniform.

Make it illegal for LEO to provide security for private gatherings without city, county, state receiving payment at profitable level from event host.

Last edited by Nathan; January 4, 2013 at 02:56 PM.
Nathan is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 03:04 PM   #7
Ben Towe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 1,110
Quote:
Pass laws to make President and Congress respect troops they visit by not disarming them in a war zone!

Make it illegal for LEO to work security in uniform.
About the first one, I wasn't aware that this was done.

About the second one: Why? LEOs carry full authority whether in uniform or not.
__________________
'Merica: Back to back World War Champs
Ben Towe is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 03:42 PM   #8
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,267
Quote:
About the second one [LEO working security in uniform]: Why? LEOs carry full authority whether in uniform or not.
+1. I've been friends with a few cops, and IMHO this proposal would needlessly antagonize them because most view these off-duty security jobs as a nice perk in a career that's often heavy on low-paid drudge work.

What's wrong with cops working security in uniform, and furthermore, what does this have to do with gun rights anyway?
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

Last edited by carguychris; January 4, 2013 at 03:44 PM. Reason: info added...
carguychris is online now  
Old January 4, 2013, 05:42 PM   #9
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
About the first one, I wasn't aware that this was done.
It is not allowed everywhere it is state/ local law so really outside the purview of this.

Personally I am in favor of letting cops work security if they can (and want to).
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 05:46 PM   #10
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,681
In regard to the OP: This isn't a trade. Speaking for myself, and only for myself, I'm done voluntarily giving up some of my rights in order to keep others. If the anti-gunners have the votes to strip me of some of those rights, well, that will suck. However, I will not let them honestly say that such was an arrangement to which I agreed.

As regards LEOs, security and uniforms: I'm for letting officers work off-duty in uniform. I think it's probably a better deterrent to crime than basic security.
__________________
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 January 4, 2013, 06:29 PM   #11
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 17,461
Repeal 1934 NFA
Repeal GCA 1968
Repeal any/all AWBs and any/all associatied limits on parts/accesories
Repeal Hughes Amendment
Repeal "conditional" handgun permits or permits of any kind.
Repeal localized (court houses, post office, etc) bans

Background checks for FFL sales are fine. No firearms for violent felons or convictions of DV is fine.
There should be heavy penalties for illegal use/possession of firearms by those prohibited people.

That would do it.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
You do not HAVE a soul. You ARE a soul. You HAVE a body.
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 06:29 PM   #12
Buffalo444
Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2012
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger View Post
Repeal 1934 NFA
Repeal GCA 1968
Repeal any/all AWBs and any/all associatied limits on parts/accesories
Repeal Hughes Amendment
Repeal "conditional" handgun permits or permits of any kind.

Background checks for FFL sales are fine. No firearms for violent felons or convictions of DV is fine.
There should be heavy penalties for illegal use/possession of firearms by those prohibited people.

That would do it.
Works for me

sent from the rust monster
Buffalo444 is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 07:50 PM   #13
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
My two most important ones would be:
-Remove suppressors and SBRs from NFA registry
-Make the nation shall-issue
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old January 4, 2013, 07:52 PM   #14
Warrior1256
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 2012
Location: Louisville, Ky.
Posts: 156
I say fight all anti gun proposals and concede NOTHING.
Warrior1256 is offline  
Old January 5, 2013, 01:56 AM   #15
FrankenMauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: 1B ID
Posts: 6,383
-Provide funding to process Lautenberg and similar appeals.
-Set permanent fixed limits on excise taxes, and prohibit further taxes on small arms, ammunition, bows, arrows, etc.
-Enact a 20-year moratorium on discussion or introduction of bills for micro-serialization of ammunition or firearms parts.
-Take Utah's lead, and prevent States (and D.C.) from creating or enforcing any firearm law more restrictive than those at a Federal level - complete with serious penalties (it won't work without penalties).
-Stop the ATF from being an 'opinion enforcement' branch of government. If there are going to be limits - define them.
-Prohibit regulation of "alternative weapons" - baseball bats, knives, swords, golf clubs, axes, machetes, beer mugs, etc.

(Some of those fall within previous suggestions, but these are things I've considered.)
__________________
"Such is the strange way that man works -- first he virtually destroys a species and then does everything in his power to restore it."
FrankenMauser is offline  
Old January 5, 2013, 09:33 AM   #16
tyme
Staff
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,133
Zero arms control. At least for small arms. What gun control we have doesn't improve much if anything, it creates a huge bureaucracy to deal with FFLs and SOTs, and the anti-gun interest groups are still not even close to happy with it.
__________________
OOOOOOOO.OOOOO...OOO......OOOOOOO.OOOOO (8ob5o3b3o6b7ob5o!)
“Compleχity is a symptom of confusion, not a cause.” —Jeff Hawkins
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...”
tyme is offline  
Old January 5, 2013, 11:54 AM   #17
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
I cannot believe so many people believe in background checks yet want GCA68 to go away.

Guess what guys, there were no FFLs prior to the GCA68. There were no background checks by anyone. Never was a problem back then.

Remember. Only law abiding citizens will comply with a background check anyway, so why burden them? It is stupid. Criminals never have a problem obtaining weapons anyway. If they cannot purchase them on the street, they will steal them. If they can't steal them from private people, they will steal them from the police or the military.

Yes, repeal the GCA68 and all of it associated law. The national government has no business in teh "arms" business

By the way, by my table top dictionary definition #1...an Arm is an OFFENSIVE weapon.
hermannr is offline  
Old January 5, 2013, 12:03 PM   #18
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
Guess what guys, there were no FFLs prior to the GCA68. There were no background checks by anyone. Never was a problem back then.

Remember. Only law abiding citizens will comply with a background check anyway, so why burden them? It is stupid. Criminals never have a problem obtaining weapons anyway. If they cannot purchase them on the street, they will steal them. If they can't steal them from private people, they will steal them from the police or the military.
They already steal them. They are just harder to steal than to buy one in PP sales. If I am a criminal and I need a gun to do something illegal I would rather just buy a gun if I could to avoid drawing attention to myself or trying to find the low risk opportunity to steal one.

Saying there "never was a problem back then" is pretty open ended and impossible to prove.

If I sell a gun I would sell it to a gun shop where the dealer has to a background check on the perspective buyer. If I could get a simple thumb up or down from an agency checking the individual I would sell my guns in PP sales. I feel better knowing that I did not sell the gun to a convicted criminal or other prohibited person as best as can be determined.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 5, 2013, 01:52 PM   #19
Romeo 33 Delta
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2009
Posts: 300
I want to eliminate the LEO sign-off requirement for Class III. That's a stupid requirement anyway and too many of them won't do it because they don't like "folks" having Class III items.

What am I willing to trade-off to get this?

NOT A %$&# THING!

They've already gotten way more than their 50/50 split of compromises over the years. This one's just for starters ... I figure they owe me at least 10 to 20 more "freebees" for their INFRINGEMENTS over the years!
Romeo 33 Delta is offline  
Old January 5, 2013, 06:32 PM   #20
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 694
Just my view on what I would like...

First, repeal the Hughes amendment...A dream, I know...

Second, instead of further restricting law abiding firearm owners, lets actually put teeth in to crimes that are comitted using a firearm, as well as work on the safety aspect also, such as:

1. Any violent crime where the suspect used a firearm to harm or kill another should have a long, stiff, MANDENTORY punishment.

2. Mandate, in a similar way of DWI, and domestic violence, that the charge of using a firearm in a violent crime can not be plead down, or dropped for an easy conviction. It should be mandentory that the charges stand and are tried in court, instead of used as a bargining chip to drop for a plea, as they are now.

3. Put forth a real study to research increasing bed space, and staffing for mental commitments, and also possibly work toward setting up say, a half-way house, for those folks who arent quite mentally stable to live on their own and need a strict place, but also have a level of freedom (I'd glady pay and support a tax increase for this).

4. Put back in place the previous federal funding for SRO's, and try to work on increasing it to have an officer in every school. (I'd also gladly pay and support a tax increase for this).

5. Remove the gun free zones on public property, and revamp the whole lock-down procedure, and try to find a way, depending on school construction/layout to encourage students to flee in somewhat of a contolled way if there is a school shooting again. Its bound to be safer then the "fish in a barrel" approach we have now. This would also require some combination effort with Fire/Rescue/EMS/LE as well, to round up the students in a safe, quick way.

6. Make schools more available to public safety personnel for training purposes...I can count on one hand the number of times I went to a training at a school for a major event. In my 20 years as a vol FF, and 10 years in LE, I can think of 2 classes I can remember. That is a terrible lack of training to be honest, and MUST be improved. (There would be a minor cost of this, and can possibly be combined with other training as well)

7. There needs to be a real effort put forth to put safety from violence right up there with fire safety in schools as well. There needs to be responsibility and people who monitor it on a regular basis to keep everything maintained, and in good repair. Keep in mind if we harden our schools to keep people out, and then have a fire, it can be difficult to evacuate as well. There needs to be a balanced approach to it, to have both equally important. (This should not require a huge amount of funding, actually should be pretty economical considering there is already folks in charge of the fire safety side already)
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old January 5, 2013, 07:45 PM   #21
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
Sworn LE officers working off duty details....

I agree with Nat's post about sworn LE officers not working off duty security but I would have a few conditions added(places that serve alcohol, EP/PSD details for a elected official, foreign govt official, authorized function like the Super Bowl, Olympics, etc).
FWIW; many sheriff's offices & PDs limit the amount of hours to 30 per work week. That's fair. Cops in my metro area earn from $37.00 to $43.00/hr starting too.
Some sworn LE officers are slack-offs or abuse the "perk" too.
I recall a media clip of a Dep Chief in Atlanta PD saying some cops go to work just to take a break!

I'd also say that many times, off duty LE officers use excessive force or unethical conduct while on these jobs.

Clyde
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old January 5, 2013, 09:14 PM   #22
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
I'd also say that many times, off duty LE officers use excessive force or unethical conduct while on these jobs.
I hear many times people use firearms in crimes. Should we ban them?
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 5, 2013, 09:54 PM   #23
btmj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 713
Am I missing something... I must be.

What is the issue with Police working as security in their off-hours? What problems does it cause? I have been puzzling over this all day, and I can not think of a down-side?

In any event, it has nothing to do with federal gun legislation or the 2nd amendment.
btmj is offline  
Old January 5, 2013, 11:42 PM   #24
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
armed security....

Armed security could be employed in many of those functions.
In many states & cities, armed security must have licenses & documented training. They(guards) may not have a conflict or be viewed as acting as a agent on the property owner's behalf in a dispute.

There have been many scandals & news stories of off duty cops beating, kicking & injuring citizens in bars/clubs. It's a real shame.
ClydeFrog 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 08:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13211 seconds with 7 queries