Gun laws you'd realistically like repealed/changed/created?

[Gaerek]

UBC and compromise don't belong in the same sentence, fantasy land or not. UBC cannot work without registration. Registration is implicit to UBC. I would never make that trade. Getting a few highly regulated gun types and parts unregulated is not even close to the value of universal registration.

[Al Norris]

There is a path to achieve many of the things I have read here. However, that path is very long and will, necessarily, take much time.

All of the federal gun laws are tied to the (expansive) interpretation of the Commerce Clause. That is where the "attack" must begin.

[sDot]

I would like to see the new media regulated to only report news and not opinion. If they want to dish out propaganda and opinion there needs to be a a warning that the views and opinions of the show are not fact and merely opinion. Also they would not be able to refer to themselves as a news sit or organization. They will have to be referred to as "opinion based media".

I think this would be incredibility helpful.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Gaerek

Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution? I'd say that's pretty compelling. How come that applies to the non-Constitutionally protected priciledge of having driver's licenses, but not not the Constitutionally protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

Armorer-at-Law is correct. FF&C doesn't compel states to honor each others' drivers' licenses. States have voluntarily entered into the Driver License Compact, by which they honor them.

Originally Posted by MTT TL

Not me. We would end up with the least common denominator as the law of the land. I have no desire to abide by the requirements of other states to get a CCL which is how it would turn out.

I'm with MTT TL on this one. My theory is that if the feds mandated reciprocity, those states with the most votes would get to determine the training requirements. That's going to weigh heavily in favor of NY, CA, etc. As I have no legal recourse against those representatives, I don't want them to get a say in how I go about getting an AR CHCL.

Now, if the States wanted to go through something like the Driver License Compact to voluntarily enact reciprocity, that'd be something I could get on board with.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by doofus47

...would you trade...

What I might "trade" is only relevant to the thread topic if it's a REALISTIC scenario.

This particular thread isn't a free for all of what we'd like to see. Someone can start a thread like that if they'd like but I really don't see the point. It'd be the choir preaching to the choir.

Honestly, I don't think the points made in the OP qualify as "realistic".

"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. We need look no further than Illinois and DC for examples. We "won" supposedly huge cases in both of those places and what changed? Essentially, only the bureaucracy. Only the path through the red tape. It's no easier or shorter or freer.

[Gaerek]

Armorer-at-Law is correct. FF&C doesn't compel states to honor each others' drivers' licenses. States have voluntarily entered into the Driver License Compact, by which they honor them.

I stand corrected. That's why I like this forum. I just learned more.

I'm with MTT TL on this one. My theory is that if the feds mandated reciprocity, those states with the most votes would get to determine the training requirements. That's going to weigh heavily in favor of NY, CA, etc. As I have no legal recourse against those representatives, I don't want them to get a say in how I go about getting an AR CHCL.

I still disagree. But without an actual bill that has a chance of passing, we'll be arguing what-ifs. We have the Respecting States’ Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013 that's currently stuck in committee. But it appears to my untrained eye to not give states any say in anything beyond what happens within their own borders.

Again, untrained eye, it appears that it says if you have a CCW in one state, you may carry as if you had an unrestricted CCW in another state. You just have to follow the states laws. I do understand it's just a bill, and it likely won't leave committee and even if it did, it could be changed.

Is there something I'm missing here?

[44 AMP]

UBC cannot work without registration. Registration is implicit to UBC

This is one area where I disagree. And agree, at the same time. Universal Background Checks could be worked without gun registration. This is where I disagree with those who say UBC must include total gun registration. It could be done without it.

BUT, what has been proposed cannot work without registration. (this is where I agree). Those proposing the law have chosen to take the path that requires total registration in order to work effectively, if at all.

As to realistic repeal or change? The one I would like to see (and might have a possibility of happening) changed is the lifetime blanket loss of firearms rights for "crimes punishable by more than one year". And along with that, full funding and operation of the part of the govt that is supposed to examine these cases when appeal for restoration of rights is brought before them.

That is not currently happeneing. With so many things in our laws today that fall into the category that will strip one of their rights, FOR LIFE, not allowing what is already built into the system to do its job is a huge failure.

[Tom Servo]

But it appears to my untrained eye to not give states any say in anything beyond what happens within their own borders.

The trick is that you have to follow the host state's laws. Are you sure you do? What if carry is prohibited in a certain manner or place, and that statute is fairly well buried in the small print? Folks go to jail.

As a matter of fact, you'd see states like New York and Maryland passing new "gotcha" statutes to make carry very unappealing to out-of-staters.

States like this will not accept having CCW foisted upon them, and they have the votes to either kill the bill or make its execution all but impossible.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Gaerek

I still disagree. But without an actual bill that has a chance of passing, we'll be arguing what-ifs. We have the Respecting States’ Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013 that's currently stuck in committee. ...

But this sort of legislation also raises issues of federalism, the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment. Essentially we're talking about supporting federal encroachment on state prerogatives when we like the result and opposing it when we don't.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Universal Background Checks could be worked without gun registration. This is where I disagree with those who say UBC must include total gun registration. It could be done without it.

How? (44A, I'm not writing this to belittle you. I'm genuinely interested in your answer.)

[Armorer-at-Law]

I think a realistic change in federal law would be to allow FFLs to sell handguns (or any firearms) to residents of other states in compliance with both states' laws (as is currently the law for long gun sales by FFLs).

[ClydeFrog]

If I were a elected official or were on a committee, Id push for a few of these law(s);

1) That no person(citizen) who is disability, welfare, medical retirement(pension), receives any form of financial compensation from a public source(government agency), etc for a diagnosed mental health illness or is under mandated psyicatric care can have or get a valid concealed carry license(concealed weapon license).
You can't be "crazy" on check day then be sane or competent enough to carry a firearm in public the rest of the time.
Firearms are deadly weapons. They should be treated with respect & gun owners/license holders should be prudent/responsible at all times.
Note; this would include US military veterans too. This issue came up last year after the Sandy Hook/Newtown CT event & the more recent murder of former US Navy SEAL Chris Kyle(by a suspect who was a USMC veteran with documented mental health issues).
2) Applicants for CCW or firearm licenses(permits) should be denied if they have current or excessive amounts(03 or more) formal trespass notices, PFAs, restraining orders, etc.
This issue(s) too has been debated hotly on TFL in the past. I can see valid points on both sides but in general, I think a person with a extended history of anti-social or aggressive/confrontational behavior shouldn't be granted a concealed carry license or weapons permit.
3) Stricter gun laws or ordinances need to be in place for parents or adults who allow young children to get access to loaded firearms.
As gun sales & CC licenses increase, the more firearms & ammunition are around children & untrained adults. These accidents are tragic but in many cases, the parent or license holder either left a loaded firearm in the open(unsecured) or the child got easy access to the firearm.
All gun owners & armed professionals(military, sworn LE, corrections, armed security, PIs, etc) know that safety training & security devices(locks, cases, etc) are available.
New laws or statues are not going to prevent all future accidents or NDs but serious criminal charges & ramifications may cause a gun owner to think twice.

CF

[cannonfire]

How?

(Still haven't figured out how to get the "originally posted by" thingy)

But by not requiring a firearm's serial number for the NICS check. There would be no way for the govt to know what gun you are looking to purchase. I guess they would be able to look at the FFL's book but I can live with that. Since that is the way it is now.

I would like to see an online version of NICS that I would be able to conduct in a face to face transfer. Something along the lines of I have to print out a copy for the seller and show ID to prove its me. Or something along those lines (it's not a complete thought)

[Brian Pfleuger]

cannonfire,

Inside the quote box, you enter = and the username.


Should look like this:

[QUOTE=cannonfire](Still haven't figured out how to get the "originally posted by" thingy)[/QUOTE]

and it will look like this when posted:

Originally Posted by cannonfire

(Still haven't figured out how to get the "originally posted by" thingy)

[Gaerek]

The trick is that you have to follow the host state's laws. Are you sure you do? What if carry is prohibited in a certain manner or place, and that statute is fairly well buried in the small print? Folks go to jail.

As a matter of fact, you'd see states like New York and Maryland passing new "gotcha" statutes to make carry very unappealing to out-of-staters.

States like this will not accept having CCW foisted upon them, and they have the votes to either kill the bill or make its execution all but impossible.

But this doesn't really change anything. I already cannot carry in those states. Even with states that have reciprocity with my state, I make sure to read and re-read the statutes before I travel to prevent any issues. What it will do, however, is open up states that are fairly gun friendly and who won't want to make an issue out of it.

Nevada, for example, just removed Arizona from it's list of states it has reciprocity with. If a national CCW law were passed, Nevada, being basically gun friendly wouldn't likely push the issue. Gun unfriendly states, I already avoid, and would likely continue with that procedure.

Again, more is better than less.

Now, the Federalism/10th Amendment argument (especially since I've had FF&C clarified) is a much better argument against. And on that basis, I can see why it might not be a good idea.

[Madcap_Magician]

Asking for the creation of a state law that limits the power of the federal government is a fantasy, and an unconstitutional one.

A constitutional and reasonable means to accomplish the same goal would be multiple successful lawsuits by the states establishing jurisprudential backing against the overreach of the federal government beyond its enumerated powers.

The commerce clause is probably the part of the Constitution whose jurisprudence needs the most revisiting (and trimming).

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Gaerek

I still disagree. But without an actual bill that has a chance of passing, we'll be arguing what-ifs. We have the Respecting States’ Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013 that's currently stuck in committee. But it appears to my untrained eye to not give states any say in anything beyond what happens within their own borders.

Again, untrained eye, it appears that it says if you have a CCW in one state, you may carry as if you had an unrestricted CCW in another state. You just have to follow the states laws. I do understand it's just a bill, and it likely won't leave committee and even if it did, it could be changed.

Is there something I'm missing here?

It's been a while since I read that bill in-depth, and it may well do what you say. As I recall, though, there were a couple of clauses that gave me pause. In all honesty, I don't recall exactly what they were, though.

And you are correct that, at this point, it's still a lot of "what-ifs." Consider this "what-if," though: Once the feds pass a bill mandating CC reciprocity, what's to stop it from dictating licensure requirements?

That's one of the reasons that I'd be much more comfortable with something like a "Concealed Carry Compact," rather than federally-mandated reciprocity.

[cannonfire]

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

Inside the quote box, you enter = and the username.

Learn something new every day. Thank you

[Gaerek]

It's been a while since I read that bill in-depth, and it may well do what you say. As I recall, though, there were a couple of clauses that gave me pause. In all honesty, I don't recall exactly what they were, though.

And you are correct that, at this point, it's still a lot of "what-ifs." Consider this "what-if," though: Once the feds pass a bill mandating CC reciprocity, what's to stop it from dictating licensure requirements?

That's one of the reasons that I'd be much more comfortable with something like a "Concealed Carry Compact," rather than federally-mandated reciprocity.

I've been thinking more and more about it. Although there's a part of me that get's giddy with joy thinking about not worrying about reciprocity anymore, I'm thinking long run, federally mandated reciprocity just might not be the best thing.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Madcap_Magician

...A constitutional and reasonable means to accomplish the same goal would be multiple successful lawsuits by the states establishing jurisprudential backing against the overreach of the federal government beyond its enumerated powers...

That's not always going to work either. It's not the role of a court to decide if the result is good or bad. It's the job of a court to apply the Constitution and applicable precedent to decide the case. The result of applying the Constitution and precedent can in fact be unsatisfactory to you.

Whenever a court makes a major decision that one disagrees with, the judicial system is broken and the judges corrupt. Whenever a court makes a major decision that one agrees with, the judges are great scholars (except any dissenters, who are corrupt), and our courts are the last bulwark against the machination of the political toadies bought and paid for by special interests. There has been, and probably always will be, a huge negative reaction by a large number of people to every important to the public Supreme Court decision. There are plenty of folks who loved Roe v. Wade and hated Heller, and perhaps as many who hated Roe v. Wade and loved Heller.

We could think that a law is a bad idea or bad public policy, and that law could be entirely within the power of Congress to enact and perfectly constitutional. Being constitutional does not guarantee that a law is a good thing.

On the other hand, it's not necessary to legislate at the outer-reaches of constitutionality. We could work at electing thoughtful legislators who will exercise some restraint.

Yes, that sounds very much like a fantasy, but things like that have happened -- checks and balances at work. Not long ago there was the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). It was a ruling on a technical point of eminent domain law (specifically involving the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to the States through the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "public use"). The result (a very broad interpretation of "public use") was found to be unsatisfactory by many. As a consequence, the legislatures of 42 States revised those States' eminent domain laws to avoid a Kelo result.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Clyde - that mental health provision is terrible and way too broad. It would sweep in millions and have no real noticeable effect.

[Chaz88]

I think a person with a extended history of anti-social or aggressive/confrontational behavior shouldn't be granted a concealed carry license or weapons permit.

Then comes the classic problem with this kind of idea. What is the specifics of the qualifier and who decides?

I have spent a great deal of time on TFL and by some standards am at times aggressively confrontational.

Spends a lot of time on impersonal gun website = ant-social

Questions other peoples comments, sometimes with strong language = aggressive and confrontational.

AND! it is on a site about guns not fluffy stuffed animals. THINK OF THE CHILDREN AND TAKE AWAY HIS RIGHTS NOW!

[Tom Servo]

What it will do, however, is open up states that are fairly gun friendly and who won't want to make an issue out of it.

Maybe, but maybe not. Consider South Carolina. Their reciprocity agreements are really screwy, and they've resisted loosening them up. I don't think they'd be too enthusiastic about federal interference.

Then there are the somewhat restrictive states like Connecticut, who aren't going to take kindly to folks from Georgia carrying when Georgia has no training requirement.

Then there's New York, California, and the like, who have the clout to kill such a bill.

No, the whole thing needs to be resolved on a state-by-state level when possible. The only other thing that might spur some reform would be a finding from the Supreme Court that carry outside the home is a right, but they've resisted hearing our cases on that.

[MTT TL]

Again, untrained eye, it appears that it says if you have a CCW in one state, you may carry as if you had an unrestricted CCW in another state. You just have to follow the states laws. I do understand it's just a bill, and it likely won't leave committee and even if it did, it could be changed.

This was the idea behind LEOSA and that just barely squeaked through. I suppose if they made a voluntary system where you would have to comply by all the same requirements as LEOs (Full background investigation, finger printing, annual fire arms qualification, clean and sober while carrying etc, etc) some would go for it. It would be like getting a gun in DC.

[44 AMP]

Originally Posted by carguychris

How? (44A, I'm not writing this to belittle you. I'm genuinely interested in your answer.)

Don't worry, I'm too big a person (especially around the middle) to feel belittled.

You do it by not making the check about the gun, but about the person.

cannonfire basically gets it. It doesn't matter what gun, if you are not a prohibited person, you are not a prohibited person.

people have said, "prove you had a background check done on that gun" which, of course would not work without registration. But why would "that gun" matter?

When the UBC was the hot topic, there was talk about how, if the law passed, situations might arise where one might have to prove that a gun was owned before the UBC law went into effect, and also possibly having to prove that you had a BC done (after the law was in effect) in regards to a specific firearm. There was a lot of talk. Most of it focused on using the gun as the identifier for the BC. This was my major objection, because, as many others also saw, such a system would mean full registration of everything in order to function.

I believe that those who chose that focus for their system did so with the intent to create full registration. And that was why it should have been (and was) opposed. Not because of what was claimed to be the result, but because of the way that they wanted to do it.

Every time I have gone through the instant phone check, they never include any information about the gun, other than long gun, or handgun. (and I don't know why they bother with that, the age check for handgun is done by the dealer long before he ever gets on the phone)

The check is done on ME, and that, by itself, creates no registration of the gun. You can say it creates a registration of me (or you), but I am already so "registered" with our government its a matter of no concern to me.

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.

Sure, things can change, you might have turned into a bad guy, but if you did, no check or waiting period can have any kind of effect on public safety, as you already have (at least) one gun! Just seems like closing the barn door after the horse is already gone...

My state has a waiting period for handgun purchase. Unless you have a CHL. Then, no waiting period. While I do not agree with the waiting period concept, I always thought that if you had to have one, that was a sensible way to do it.