Gun laws you'd realistically like repealed/changed/created?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I would like to see gun carry as a right similar to being a protected class. Thus, businesses or other institutions could not ban carry (assuming your state has such - as most do) unless there is a highly technical reason for such (gun in the MRI).

I know some folks think property rights trump this but protected classes have trumped discrimination. I go for that interpretation.

I am fearful of national concealed carry as such a law might end up with some truly draconian rules. If there was a shall issue for the country that was not oppressive in application - that might work.

[Grizz12]

I am fearful of national concealed carry as such a law might end up with some truly draconian rules

Bad guys already carry concealed and they don't need to go through any type of training or background checks, why should I??

[Nickel Plated]

This is not a gun law specifically (which might be a good thing since it can be sneaked in without necessarily attracting the attention of all the typical anti-gunners who would kill it)

But I would love to see a law that requires a sunset date for ALL laws passed.
And sets a sunset date for all laws currently on the books that do not have one, perhaps with some formula to assign different dates for different laws so they don't all end up sunsetting at the same time.

People always complain that there are just too many laws on the books. Many of which are just old and irrelevant or have outlived their purpose. Like some of the odd laws you see prohibiting riding a horse through town while wearing a red scarf. it would clean up the books from all the old laws. And also ensure that only laws that are actually doing their jobs and still relevant would remain. Perhaps if a law can't get the votes to be renewed, then it ain't worth having anymore.

This would help us on the gun front because we certainly have plenty of laws that have long outlived their usefulness if they ever had any to begin with (like the suppressor and SBS/SBR restrictions) but are difficult to repeal just because they've always been around. Also it's just much harder to repeal a law than it was to get it passed in the first place.

This would essentially put a test to each law every few years as to whether it's still worth having or not.

[jrwhitt]

I've always liked the principle that Robert Heinlin expressed in one of his books.

To pass a law it should take 2/3s of the voters and to repeal only 1/3.

[Madcap_Magician]

Originally Posted by carguychris

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry, but none of this makes sense to me. We already have a Master List, it's called NICS. It needs to be more accurate and better maintained, but you'll have to explain the civil liberties or privacy concerns generated by maintaining a list of felons, persons convicted of domestic violence, and persons involuntarily committed to a mental health institution.

Even if you do consider that a civil liberty issue, I didn't say anything about civil liberties, I only said it was in fact possible to conduct FFL background checks in a manner that did not send buyer or gun data to the federal government.

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

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

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

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

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

Two things- first, you're correct, the database to which I allude is essentially the NICS database. The difference I point out is that by making the dealers responsible for checking that the buyer isn't on the list, you remove the ability of the federal government to maintain any records of guns or gun owners because the buyer and firearm data is never submitted to the federal government, it stays at the dealer level. Contra the current system in which the dealer calls in that data to the federally run NICS system.

Second, I agree that dealer background checks do not stop motivated criminals from getting guns. Background checks do not make it hard for a criminal to get a gun, and few criminals purchase guns from dealers themselves. However, removing dealer background checks would make it easier for criminals to get guns. There would be no need for a black market in guns, for straw purchasers, or for theft, criminals could simply walk into the store and buy them like the rest of us.

[Tom Servo]

There would be no need for a black market in guns, for straw purchasers, or for theft, criminals could simply walk into the store and buy them like the rest of us.

Actually, the dealer would still be keeping the same paperwork, which allows for tracing the gun to the buyer. A criminal isn't going to want that either, so I doubt we'd see much of an uptick in sales to them.

This would essentially put a test to each law every few years as to whether it's still worth having or not.

I love that idea! Too bad most lawmakers would never support it.

[stevelyn]

Strip the the "sporting purposes" clause out of the '68 GCA and forbid the use of the term in any law or regulation as criteria for determining the "suitability" of any firearm for private ownership.

It's subjective at best, and can be and is twisted, turned, folded, spindled and mutilated to suit the agenda of anyone wanting to restrict gun ownership through regulatory fiat.

[Madcap_Magician]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Actually, the dealer would still be keeping the same paperwork, which allows for tracing the gun to the buyer. A criminal isn't going to want that either, so I doubt we'd see much of an uptick in sales to them.

Hmm, you know, I hadn't even thought of that way, but you're right. I think my point about it being possible to do background checks without providing buyer or firearm data to the federal government stands, though.

I am also in favor of a sunset clause on all laws, with the addition of a clause that requires all laws to have included a metric by which the public and Congress can determine whether they have had the desired effect. I.e. we pass law X to achieve effect Y, and we will consider that achieved if effect Y increases or decreases by amount Z within a certain time period.

We have all these laws that put a burden on us as individuals and as a society, and we're told that it's worth it For The Children Or Something. It would be nice to know if we were actually getting our money's worth on them, and to make it necessary to have them revoted on say after every Congressional election.

[doofus47]

+1 to the sunset on all laws...

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Madcap Magician

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

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

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

Ummm, just one small point. Unless you want to send a paper copy of this Master List to each and every FFL, it remains a computer search, on the FBI's Master List. So, while it might not technically involve "registration," the information would still have to be sent in to the FBI computer housing the ML. Quite frankly, that still sounds a lot like the NICS system.

Am I missing something in this plan?

[Madcap_Magician]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

Ummm, just one small point. Unless you want to send a paper copy of this Master List to each and every FFL, it remains a computer search, on the FBI's Master List. So, while it might not technically involve "registration," the information would still have to be sent in to the FBI computer housing the ML. Quite frankly, that still sounds a lot like the NICS system.

Am I missing something in this plan?

Possibly. From an IT standpoint, it would be possible to strip incoming query data from dealers as their computers ping the servers hosting the database, divert it, and store it.

But another possibility is a desktop software client package for FFLs that contains the database and receives real-time or near real-time updates from the central database. So the dealer would only be searching a database on his own computer system, one that is updated in the same way that multiplayer online computer game clients (Steam, League of Legends, World of Warcraft, etc.) or system security/antivirus/malware/firewalls update.

You could make it a requirement that the dealer update their database before each sale.

Now, we're still headed into murky waters, because we've seen recently how well the federal government manages large web site projects that draw from multiple databases...

But it's possible.

[sigcurious]

But another possibility is a desktop software client package for FFLs that contains the database and receives real-time or near real-time updates from the central database. So the dealer would only be searching a database on his own computer system, one that is updated in the same way that multiplayer online computer game clients (Steam, League of Legends, World of Warcraft, etc.) or system security/antivirus/malware/firewalls update.

What the what? You still have a central database and now you're suggesting a plan that calls for sensitive information to be replicated thousands of times in locations of varying security, physical and otherwise? Vastly increasing the chances of fragmentation of data and security issues while still having the same central foundation that currently exists is not an improvement.

[Tom Servo]

But another possibility is a desktop software client package for FFLs that contains the database and receives real-time or near real-time updates from the central database.

No go. I don't want gun dealers to bear the responsibility of having to safeguard that data. Think of what could happen if the wrong person got their hands on the database.

As it is now, the NICS system is prohibited from keeping persistent data on background checks. Is it perfect? Heck no, but it is set up to be fairly safe.

[Madcap_Magician]

Originally Posted by Sigcurious

What the what? You still have a central database and now you're suggesting a plan that calls for sensitive information to be replicated thousands of times in locations of varying security, physical and otherwise? Vastly increasing the chances of fragmentation of data and security issues while still having the same central foundation that currently exists is not an improvement.

The central database is essentially NICS. I'm not sure if A. You consider a list of prohibited offenders to be sensitive information, in which case, you would also have to consider NICS to be an overreach. B. You don't understand that the buyer information and firearm information never passes through the centralized database.

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

No go. I don't want gun dealers to bear the responsibility of having to safeguard that data. Think of what could happen if the wrong person got their hands on the database.

As it is now, the NICS system is prohibited from keeping persistent data on background checks. Is it perfect? Heck no, but it is set up to be fairly safe.

What would happen if the wrong people got their hands on the database?

I'm not sure how this is any worse than NICS, and it could arguably be better since it's not the government that is controlling the records of innocent people.

You could simply argue that background checks at all are always a bad idea. That's a reasonable argument, but to circle back to the original poster, it's a fringe opinion everywhere except internet gun boards, so as a matter of realism, it's not high up there.

[sigcurious]

As it stands the firearm information other than cursory does not pass to NICS, and they already have more information on the potential buyer than is on the 4473. The minor benefit of not alerting the central database when a check is run (which is already destroyed in the current system) is far outweighed by security and information integrity issues of having thousands of copies of a database full of personal information.

In order to have an accurate list you need a lot of identifying information. It's not as simple as, well I searched John Smith, and it said someone named John Smith is A-OK. It has to be the right John Smith, which in some cases would take a lot of cross-referenced information to verify, which paints a pretty detailed picture of someone, including SSNs. Having all of that information on thousands of computers across the country is a security nightmare.

Even if you created a system where people where people were approved by a negative result you'd still have all the information on there for the offenders whose right to privacy and information security is not diminished. Additionally, a negative result system would still have to be smart enough to require additional verification for conflicting, incomplete and/or inconclusive information erasing in some cases the minor benefit of not alerting a central system.

Whether or not I approve of NICS is irrelevant, what you're suggesting is not an improvement on the current system, its a step towards more issues. I'm sure no identity thief would ever want a database containing millions of people's identifying information...

[Tom Servo]

What would happen if the wrong people got their hands on the database?

On a 4473, I have the information that Mr. Smith as an individual has volunteered to give me as part of a transaction. The idea to which I objected above was having a searchable database of anybody, without their consent.

So, I can do a search on Mr. Jones because he's dating my daughter and dredge up embarrassing stuff from 20 years ago. Or I can run one on Mr. Whipple because I want his address and Social Security number. No bueno.

I'm not sure how this is any worse than NICS, and it could arguably be better since it's not the government that is controlling the records of innocent people.

The NICS system has known safeguards. I'm not a fan of it, but we could do far worse.

[Nickel Plated]

Really, the whole NICS system is pretty useless when dealing with a prohibited person who knows anything about it. Atleast as far as I understand it does not actually run a background check on the person looking to buy a firearm and dredge up all the information on them for the FBI too look at.

NICS is simply a list of people KNOWN to the FBI to be prohibited. When you provide your info on the 4473 as mister John Smith of 123 Wherever Rd. Nowhere, USA they don't actually pull up some record of you and say "Let's see if this guy's got a criminal history". They simply run your info against the list and see if a match pops up. Yet other than the store clerk checking your ID and making sure the info on the 4473 matches it, the FBI has no way of verifying whether the person who's info you gave even exists.

If one wants to, you can use a fake ID with a completely made up persona to do the NICS check. Since the person you claim to be does not actually exist, there will ofcourse not be a match in the system and you're approved.

So like with any other gun law, NICS is just to keep the honest people honest and maybe weed out some of the idiots.

[ronl]

I'd like to see the laws concerning suppressors canned. (pun intended) It really makes no sense whatsoever. Shooting with a suppressor does away with much of the noise associated with shooting and it sure makes it easier on the neighbors' ears. The only reason I do not own one is that I am reluctant to allow a visit by the ATF at any time of their choosing. The $200 tax stamp is a bit of a bother, too, as well as the lengthy wait for approval. I also think the laws concerning SBR/machine guns need to be just thrown out. As a law-abiding citizen of the USA I should be allowed the same means of protecting myself as the politicians/police, without any restrictions other than normal checks. It'll never happen, though, because our gov. is addicted to money in any shape or form that it can be extracted from the people.

[Tom Servo]

If one wants to, you can use a fake ID with a completely made up persona to do the NICS check. Since the person you claim to be does not actually exist, there will ofcourse not be a match in the system and you're approved.

Yes, but that person would be committing a crime by possessing a fake ID, as well as one by lying on the form.

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

I personally would like the NFA registration opened back up even for a brief time. I also would like to see suppressors taken off of the NFA list.

[Grizz12]

Yes, but that person would be committing a crime by possessing a fake ID, as well as one by lying on the form.

exactly, you CAN NOT stop criminals but it is possible to infringe on the Rights of the law abiding citizens. NICS has not done a thing to prevent criminals from being criminals

[Madcap_Magician]

Originally Posted by sigcurious

As it stands the firearm information other than cursory does not pass to NICS, and they already have more information on the potential buyer than is on the 4473. The minor benefit of not alerting the central database when a check is run (which is already destroyed in the current system) is far outweighed by security and information integrity issues of having thousands of copies of a database full of personal information.

In order to have an accurate list you need a lot of identifying information. It's not as simple as, well I searched John Smith, and it said someone named John Smith is A-OK. It has to be the right John Smith, which in some cases would take a lot of cross-referenced information to verify, which paints a pretty detailed picture of someone, including SSNs. Having all of that information on thousands of computers across the country is a security nightmare.

Even if you created a system where people where people were approved by a negative result you'd still have all the information on there for the offenders whose right to privacy and information security is not diminished. Additionally, a negative result system would still have to be smart enough to require additional verification for conflicting, incomplete and/or inconclusive information erasing in some cases the minor benefit of not alerting a central system.

Whether or not I approve of NICS is irrelevant, what you're suggesting is not an improvement on the current system, its a step towards more issues. I'm sure no identity thief would ever want a database containing millions of people's identifying information...

Well, OK, but we already have millions of computers in public and private hands containing databases of sensitive information, so I suppose we just disagree on whether one more such system would make the security risk critical.

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

On a 4473, I have the information that Mr. Smith as an individual has volunteered to give me as part of a transaction. The idea to which I objected above was having a searchable database of anybody, without their consent.

So, I can do a search on Mr. Jones because he's dating my daughter and dredge up embarrassing stuff from 20 years ago. Or I can run one on Mr. Whipple because I want his address and Social Security number. No bueno.

I understand and see that risk, but I just think that you can mitigate it. You would have to have detailed identifying information about a person, but you would not have to have information about why they are in that system.

This system could be run similar to HIPAA-compliant electronic medical records. It is a legal violation to improperly use it. What if, when a dealer ran a search, it was linked to their inventory system such that they needed to enter a serial number of a firearm in their store to run the search, and it was grounds for license revocation if they ran unauthorized searches? \

Another risk that you have not addressed is the risk for false entries, which I had been thinking about. That's a pain even in NICS. I think there should be a better process for appealing denials and more usage of the UPIN system so that a false positive denial only happens once per person at most.

[sigcurious]

Well, OK, but we already have millions of computers in public and private hands containing databases of sensitive information, so I suppose we just disagree on whether one more such system would make the security risk critical.

Really? How many of those databases are in homes or strip malls with information compiled and distributed by the government?

There's a big difference between someone voluntarily giving information, and that information being disseminated to private individuals without consent by the government.

What if, when a dealer ran a search, it was linked to their inventory system such that they needed to enter a serial number of a firearm in their store to run the search, and it was grounds for license revocation if they ran unauthorized searches?

How would linking it to serials prevent or alert to unauthorized searches? If the searches are unmonitored there's no enforcement mechanism...and if they are monitored...well now you're sending serial info into the central database(or storing it client side for later collection) along with what would already be sent under NICS and requiring it to be further stored and analyzed for misuse.

Not to mention, for any enforcement to be possible based on serials being added to the mix, the government would now need a master list of serials(starting at manufacture) that's regularly updated with the disposition of those firearms, as they pass through the various distributors/FFLS/end-user. Otherwise someone could still just enter false information and render the serial requirement pointless or nearly impossible to enforce.

[Tom Servo]

Well, OK, but we already have millions of computers in public and private hands containing databases of sensitive information, so I suppose we just disagree on whether one more such system would make the security risk critical.

Again, no go. "Just one more" isn't a reasonable justification.

This system could be run similar to HIPAA-compliant electronic medical records.

The difference is that there are safeguards with that. We've all seen the gun-shop gripe threads that pop up here. There's some truth in those. Do we really want minimum-wage retail counter help having access to detailed personal information? Probably not.

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by leadcounsel

What are some gun laws you'd realistically liked changed/repealed, or even created

>I'd like to see constitutional carry anywhere in America.
>I'd like to see a federal law prohibiting any public business from prohibiting employees and patrons from lawfully carrying.