are there any sensible gun regulations you would support?

[iraiam]

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.

 

[zincwarrior]

Again for argument's sake.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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! 

 

[sigcurious]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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?

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?

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.

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?

 

[shootniron]

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?

 

[Pilot]

Driving a car on public roads is not an inalienable right bestowed upon us by our creator not to be infringed by our government. Defending oneself with the use of a firearm is, as stated in the U.S. Constitution.

So, NO, I would not agree to national restrictions on firearm ownership through the guise of a national training requirement for ownership. I will not agree to any further erosion of my rights, in fact I demand the ones already taken be returned to me.

 

[BikeNGun1974]

Gun laws I would like to see passed:
- National Constitutional carry
- repeal NFA


Not much else.

 

[ronl]

We have more than enough "sensible" gun laws.

 

[Gerry]

There is no correlation between Brady rankings and homicides caused by firearms. The Brady ranking is a point system introduced by the "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" to measure the strength of state gun laws using a variety of criteria: http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard-descriptions?s=1

Here we see that the strength of gun legislation does not seem to influence the rate of gun murders within the United States, yet we see a strong relationship between poverty levels and homicides: http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/12/20/is-gun-control-the-right-conversation/

Legislation should not be based on placating an emotional public at an opportune time to win votes, but instead on sound science. According to all the science and sociological data available to us at this time, reducing income disparity and improving conditions for the poorest of Americans would strongly affect the rate of gun violence. Strengthening gun laws, even the "sensible" ones it seems, will not.

 

[sigcurious]

Before the GCA 1968, this kind of stuff did not happen...The worst school mass killing was in 1927,,,and it was by a BOMB not a shooting...I challange you to find a school shooting prior to the GCA1968? If you find one, tells us all about it OK?

That's a bit broad, I can think of one without even looking...Charles Whitman at the University of Texas 1966. I'd imagine there are others. "This kind of stuff", spree/mass killing, most certainly happened before 1968 and will continue to happen, regardless of the method used.

 

[hermannr]

I am old (over 65) and I will state, I do not remember anthing like this prior to teh GCA68..I looked up your Whitman guy, yep, that was pre GCA68, However, I was Out-of-country at the time that happened. BTW: the University of TX is a "weapons free zone" bet if you check, it was back then too.

GCA68 would not have prevented Whitman, and did not prevent Newtown, CT..even the CT AWB and mag limits did not prevent Newtown.

Ok, other than Whitman...let's hear about tehm

 

[mayosligo]

No. Nothing would change incidents of mass shootings.

 

[Crankgrinder]

I do not care about extended mags for pistols holding 30+ rounds or 100rd mags for ARs, to me theyre more of a novelty item. If the gun came from the factory with 15 or 17 then thats the limit it ought to be. ARs were made in the first place to accept 20 rd mags. 30 rounders came as a request from troops trying to keep up with the nva and the vc back in nam so i dont know about those. I am not okay with being forced to use reduced capacity mags at a limit that they get to set.

 

[Warrior1256]

The antis have shown time and again that they will be satisifed with NOTHING short of a total ban on civilian gun ownership.

Feinstein said so herself stating that if she could have gotten 51 votes in the senate she would have outlawed guns for civilian use.

We have to hang tough, conceding nothing and fighting any attempt to infringe on our 2nd amendment rights.

Everytime that we give in it simply emboldens the antis and they come back with more demands.

 

[hermannr]

Except for her of course.

 

[Romeo 33 Delta]

I'm 68 now and have been a gun owner for 58 of those years. I'm also an Infantry combat vet.

1. I will have NO ONE tell me that I cannot sell my private property without involving a third party ... license holder.

2. I don't need ANY firearms course. I know I'm smarter than an area Chief of Police (now a State Liason for Gun Safety Deptartment head or some such BS) who shot himself in the hand while cleaning his personal weapon at home.

3. If a gun show promoter wants to ban non-dealer sales, FINE ... it's his venue!

4. If the government wants to ban non-dealer sales, NO.

5. We have enough GUN laws already. We need a means of identifying and then denying firearms to mentally unstable individuals. What we have works fairly well; let's see if we can improve the data base.

That comment about some people wanting to buy below the radar and those people being the ones who should probably be watched was a snotty swipe at best. I have bought from dealers and non-dealers. I personally don't care about "paper". But I know some upstanding folks who do and that's their priviledge.

That's my 2 cents. I know I'm a hard case on gun rights and I'm not by nature inclined to compromise just to appear to be reasonable. If compromise is so important, I demand that the gun grabbers do the compromising ... otherwise, leave the table and don't come back until you have something to offer ME!

 

[Magnum Mike]

Special training! Heck no. I feel I shouldnt have had to pay for a course and then throw the state another $100 for a permit now!
You got to be kidding right! The anti's would make the course so hard and expensive that only the politicians could own guns!!
NO NO & NO!

 

[kilimanjaro]

OK, let's see some common-sense, reasonable rules for gun control come from the other side, such as :

Concealed-carry permits be valid across all state lines, in order to prevent crimes on interstate travelers.
A NICS check be performed on all private sales at gun shows, or by a local sheriff on request. No FFL is needed for private transfers.
Require locked storage in a cabinet or safe of all unloaded firearms in the home. Your self- or home-defense piece is exempt.

That's all the gun control I've give you. Now, let's see some common-sense, reasonable proposals for dealing with the mentally ill, criminals, and those on psychoactive drugs, in order to prevent mass shootings.

 

[motorhead0922]

I think we need to look at this as a negotiation, which it is. What will you give, to get something in return?

I would put FFL NICS checks for private sales/transfers on the table. In return, I would expect something "reasonable", like more protection for travelers passing through ANY state, like getting diverted/stuck in NYC airport.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

There is no correlation between Brady rankings and homicides caused by firearms.

Don't fall into the terminology trap. You have two serious errors in that one simple sentence.

First, the firearms don't "cause" homicides. The firearm may be the tool, just as an axe or a hammer or a knife or an automobile may be the tool, but the firearms are not the cause. The cause is the person who aims the firearm and pulls the trigger.

Second, don't allow "them" to inflate their statistics. "Homicide" means the killing of a human being. Statistics on "homicides" with firearms include all homicides using firearms. In addition to "murders," this also includes suicides, lawful shootings by police officers where the result is the death of the perpetrator, and lawful self defense with a firearm where the result is the death of the perpetrator.

Don't say (or write) "homicide" when/where the concern is "murder."