are there any sensible gun regulations you would support?

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

I don't think it was then, and if it was they bent the rules into a pretzel. Whitman was initially slowed down and contained by "civilians" pinning him down with privately-owned hunting rifles until the police could muster a coherent response. In those days municipal police departments didn't all have dedicated SWAT teams and highly trained snipers.

 

[ferrarif1fan]

Killmanjaro,

I want to make one comment about your post. You suggested a NICS check on all sales at gun shows. I'm in agreement. I don't see why that venue is any different from purchasing from an FFL. Same check for the same transaction...sounds fine to me. I also like your other suggestions as well.

But I do want to comment on no checks whatsoever on FTF transactions. When I sell a handgun in my state of Kentucky, I ask to see the buyer's KY drivers license to make sure I can legally sell the gun to them. I also have a bill of sale that has a statement the buyer reads and signs that states that they have assured me they are legally able to purchase the gun. In addition, I write down a driver's license number or their CCW license number on my copy of the bill of sale. I assure them that the document will never see the light of day unless a member of law enforcement knocks on my door asking about a gun that used to belong to me that was used in a crime. I tell them I do these things to do my best to keep guns out of hands that are legally not able to own them. So far, NO ONE I've sold to has found that unreasonable.

I do these things because I am a responsible gun owner who wants to do what I can to make certain my gun does not fall into the hands of someone who, by law, is not supposed to have it. Since I live within a few miles of Tennessee, you don't know how many times I've had people try to talk me into an interstate FTF deal without involving an FFL. I always remind them it's a felony and I do not intend to go to prison or lose my right to own firearms. In EVERY case, the TN resident has been unwilling to comply and has hung up. I've also had women calling me asking me questions about the gun I have for sale with the man whispering questions in the background. I've never sold to any of those persons.

I bring these stories up to illustrate that FTF sales, although many here will say is their right, puts guns into the hands of some people who legally can't, and probably shouldn't own them. I'm sure many will condemn my conditions of sale and say they wouldn't buy from me, but guess what, it's my gun and I'll do as I please with it. And I will do my best to never sell it to someone I think may use it for nefarious purposes.

To sum up, it would be nice if all guns sales would go through the NICS check. Yeah, it would add a few dollars to each transaction. But I have one friend who's an FFL who transfers every gun for $10 and another local FFL who will do it for a "big bag of dog food" (his words exactly), which he then donates to the local animal shelter. If a transfer was required, trust me, those who charged exorbitant fees would find themselves doing no transfers and would soon adjust their fees downward.

I am disappointed by most of what I've read on the few gun forums I frequent regarding solutions to some of the tragedies we've experienced lately. I am in total agreement that gun control won't keep criminals from obtaining and using guns. But I do not agree that just because that statement is true, we should absolve ourselves from trying to provide positive suggestions to help alleviate the problem. To do so seems uncaring, irresponsible, and certainly paints a bad picture of gun right advocates in the public's eyes. And right now, that's exactly what they're wanting to see.

I have guns and I want to keep my guns to be able to protect myself, my family, and those I may be around if the next criminal or lunatic opens fire. But I am also willing to jump through a few more hoops if it might make our society a little safer.

Robert

 

[stevelyn]

are there any sensible gun regulations you would support?

Nope. With all the gun laws on the books, there's nothing "sensible" left that can be added without encroaching on my rights.

Repeals? Now that would be a step in the right direction.

 

[5whiskey]

are there any sensible gun regulations you would support?

Yes. Yes there is. I would pass a federal request that each state enable a type of local "civil militia." I use militia loosely because I'm not talking about citizens who are to be called up to fight a war. I'm talking about local and state governments accepting volunteers to pass a thorough background check. Then the state or local LEO agency provides free training. Then the "civil militiaman" has not only the right, but the responsibility to carry a firearm with him at all times. No arrest powers, only the expectation to use force to protect the lives of others. Everyone else will be allowed CCW permits, but whatever restriction the state wants to apply is fine. Local governments and schools will be required to certify or hire a certain percentage of "militiamen" (or women), much like firearm competent affirmative action. These members will be required to attend annual (or semi-annual) training, provided free of charge by the local LEO agency. This is my version of gun control that I want to see.

 

[SVO]

No.

We've tried being reasonable and reasonable didn't work. And I resent those who are willing to surrender the ownership of 30 round magazines as long as they are able to keep their 20 round magazines. If we accept and surrender the 30 round magazines, sooner or later, we will be asked to accept and surrender the 20 round magazines. The goal is not to restrict the number of rounds in a magazine, the goal is to eliminate magazines. The same applies to the other points of "reasonable". Some people are being less than smart in believing reasonable will work.

 

[Punisher_1]

This is why firearms owners will be left out of the process. We go from one extreme to the other amongst ourselves. How are we going to convince the law makers of anything? Something with new restrictions is going to be proposed and possibly pass based on popular desires. So if compromise is on the horizon I'd figure out the least restrictive changes. Hopefully like 90 percent of what is proposed in Congress it won't pass. I hope not.

 

[zincwarrior]

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.

I like those. I'll add:
Minimum 20 extra years for use of a firearm in a crime.
Minimum 20 years for illegally selling a firearm to a criminal.

 

[Tom Servo]

Minimum 20 extra years for use of a firearm in a crime.
Minimum 20 years for illegally selling a firearm to a criminal.

We need to be careful with blanket regulations like that.

For example, if I'm wrongly accused of shoplifting and happen to be carrying at the time, that could be a real problem for me. What if I sell a gun privately to someone who gives no indication of being a criminal? Do I deserve to spend a significant portion of my life in prison?

It's well-meaning on the surface, but in practice, it has the potential to be very problematic. This is how things like the Lautenberg amendment create so many problems.

 

[gaseousclay]

I am disappointed by most of what I've read on the few gun forums I frequent regarding solutions to some of the tragedies we've experienced lately. I am in total agreement that gun control won't keep criminals from obtaining and using guns. But I do not agree that just because that statement is true, we should absolve ourselves from trying to provide positive suggestions to help alleviate the problem. To do so seems uncaring, irresponsible, and certainly paints a bad picture of gun right advocates in the public's eyes. And right now, that's exactly what they're wanting to see.

I have guns and I want to keep my guns to be able to protect myself, my family, and those I may be around if the next criminal or lunatic opens fire. But I am also willing to jump through a few more hoops if it might make our society a little safer.

well said and I agree with you 100%. I guess I find it a little disappointing that when we gun owners talk about 'sensible' gun laws we either tout apathy or we espouse the idea that jumping through those extra hoops is somehow eroding our gun rights. If you can still get a gun but close those loop holes I think this is a good thing imo

 

[zincwarrior]

Quote:
Minimum 20 extra years for use of a firearm in a crime.
Minimum 20 years for illegally selling a firearm to a criminal.

We need to be careful with blanket regulations like that.

For example, if I'm wrongly accused of shoplifting and happen to be carrying at the time, that could be a real problem for me.

***Accused is not convicted. personally I'd be fine with the death penalty for using a fiream in the commission of a crime. If there is the will then anything can be achieved.

What if I sell a gun privately to someone who gives no indication of being a criminal? Do I deserve to spend a significant portion of my life in prison?

***If you don't take the proper precautions and break the law, you betcha.

It's well-meaning on the surface, but in practice, it has the potential to be very problematic. This is how things like the Lautenberg amendment create so many problems.

Again, if you want to actually stop something, you have to properly punish and reward. You want to drop gun crime significantly, you literally drop the hammer on gun crime.

 

[pturner67]

What we feel is sensible is not necessarily sensible to the knee-jerk community.

Obama today on YouTube:

"This week I called on Congress to take up and pass common-sense legislation that has the support of the majority of American people, including banning the sale of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips and making sure criminals can't take advantage of legal loopholes to get their hands on a gun," he continues.

 

[gaseousclay]

What we feel is sensible is not necessarily sensible to the knee-jerk community.

define 'we.' not all gun owners are created equal and we all don't agree on the same things. i've seen knee-jerk reactions from both the pro-gun community and anti-gun community. the moment you say, 'keep your hands off my guns,' is the moment when everyone stops listening and we get nowhere. i'm not agreeing with an assault weapons ban per se, but I don't think it should be made easily available to just anyone. I have no problem jumping through a few extra hoops to acquire a gun - I have nothing to hide.

 

[sigcurious]

I am in total agreement that gun control won't keep criminals from obtaining and using guns. But I do not agree that just because that statement is true, we should absolve ourselves from trying to provide positive suggestions to help alleviate the problem. To do so seems uncaring, irresponsible, and certainly paints a bad picture of gun right advocates in the public's eyes. And right now, that's exactly what they're wanting to see.

I have guns and I want to keep my guns to be able to protect myself, my family, and those I may be around if the next criminal or lunatic opens fire. But I am also willing to jump through a few more hoops if it might make our society a little safer.

That is a logical non sequitur. You state that you do not believe that gun control will stop criminals from obtaining and using guns, but that the solution to criminals obtaining and using guns is gun control. The issue is that positive suggestions should not be in the realm of gun control, because gun control is just the red herring in this case. The real issue of violent crime in general and spree violence is multi-faceted and far reaching between various aspects of society and human nature.

It is very much the opposite of uncaring and irresponsible. Not only do we care for public safety but also constitutional rights which should not be diminished in the hopes that it will appease the masses until the next inevitable incident, when they will cry for a further diminishing of those rights. However, it is irresponsible to place restrictions on a right based on an understandable but irrational emotional reaction to an incident.

If that were the response anytime a right were misused, the bill of rights would be stripped of much of its meaning to and protection of our society. Speech and religion, not only in our country but all over the world and throughout history, have been misused to incite extreme and extended violence. Yet it would be an affront to even suggest placing ever increasing restrictions on either based on incidents of their misuse.

Proponents of gun control, such as Feinstein, have explicitly stated that they would like to see all guns regulated away. The unfortunate "logic" of their way of thinking is that, guns are used in crime, crime is bad, therefor guns are bad. If there are no guns there will be less crime. It takes a huge leap to assume that less guns or restricted access to guns, would diminish crime. If we look within our own country and abroad there is simply not evidence that this is true. It might shift the means used, but not the amount of crime itself.

It does not, however, take a huge leap to see that once a constitutional right is shackled at the federal level that breaking free of that shackle is a long and arduous process. If the goal is truly public safety and saving lives, then the solutions should actually address those issues and have the potential to do more good than harm to our society.

 

[Armorer-at-Law]

But I am also willing to jump through a few more hoops if it might make our society a little safer.

But you already acknowledged that more gun regulations will not make society safer. Rather than compromise away more rights, why not counter those "sensible but ineffective" proposals with something that could make us (or our children) safer? Are you (or the "public" that you fear is judging us as gun rights advocats) willing to lift restrictions that disarm us in certain locations, especially at location where we send our our most precious and defenseless ones (children)?

 

[zukiphile]

define 'we.' not all gun owners are created equal and we all don't agree on the same things.

I believe that "we" refers to those who have a principled commitment to the civil right described in the Second Amendment.

i've seen knee-jerk reactions from both the pro-gun community and anti-gun community.

I haven't seen anything thoughtless or over-the-top communications from Second Amendment defenders over the last week. I am sure some must've occurred, but the contrast against the gleeful dreams of greater restrictions is considerable.

the moment you say, 'keep your hands off my guns,' is the moment when everyone stops listening and we get nowhere.

I do not want to go anywhere that begins with an agreement that the state should have its hands on my guns. If agreement on that point is what is required for the conversation, I would prefer to not have the conversation.

i'm not agreeing with an assault weapons ban per se, but I don't think it should be made easily available to just anyone. I have no problem jumping through a few extra hoops to acquire a gun ...

I would have a significant problem in going through "a few extra hoops" for a rifle, a device that is used in criminal activities only infrequently.

...I have nothing to hide.

Whilethat is unlikely, it may be true. However, whether you have something to hide is distinguishable from whether the state has any limits in the depth and extent of its interrogation before allowing you to exercise a right.

A lot of the power of the defense of this right rests on a coherent statement and application of principle. Once those principles are jettisoned, one enters a land of serial half a loaf compromises with people on interested in leaving you any of that loaf.

 

[Old Grump]

I will back any law that rescinds every gun law ever written in the last 237 years and forbids any new gun restriction laws, rules, or regulations.

 

[Punisher_1]

Has anyone ever compared the ages of the shooters in these types of crime? Maybe it's time to recognize that maturity may not be linked to 21 years of age. Especially now a days. Maybe assault weapons should be withheld until 30 or something so you may have outgrown immaturity and someone's mental illness will have become evident. Unless you have an honorable discharge of course. Just a thought.

 

[Willie D]

I think mandatory background checks on all sales is probably inevitable and while inconvenient I don't think it would be the worst thing.

Does it stop illicit gun sales? Would it have helped in the Lanza case? No, but it would at least be a bigger hurdle to keep felons and crazies away from stuff they shouldn't legally have.

I wouldn't oppose the NRA if they took the lead on that one.



Mandatory reporting requirements of stolen guns might also be something to look at because "I didn't know my guns were stolen" seems to be a get out of jail free card for straw purchasers but it would have to be written very carefully to not penalize legitimate theft victims. This one could easily head down a slippery slope.



If the NRA blows it this time I'll never send them another penny.

 

[zukiphile]

Maybe assault weapons should be withheld until 30 or something so you may have outgrown immaturity and someone's mental illness will have become evident.

Imagine the problems we would avoid if we applied that the voting.

 

[sigcurious]

Has anyone ever compared the ages of the shooters in these types of crime? Maybe it's time to recognize that maturity may not be linked to 21 years of age. Especially now a days. Maybe assault weapons should be withheld until 30 or something so you may have outgrown immaturity and someone's mental illness will have become evident. Unless you have an honorable discharge of course. Just a thought.

This basic premise falls into the trap that some how an AR-15 is fundamentally different than any other semi-automatic rifle, or that only "assault weapons" could be used to commit such atrocities. Many incidents of spree/mass violence, did not utilize "assault weapons", based on the foundational logic of your statement, it should read "Maybe all firearms should be witheld until the age of 30...".

Furthermore who's to decide what age and metal illness is appropriate to restrictions? The attack in Norway which had a much higher number of casualties than any American incident was methodically planned and executed by a 32 year old, who legally obtained the firearms and materials(albeit under false pretenses), used in the attack, in a country that has more restrictions than the US on firearms.

An exemption for honorable discharge does not mean "safe" person. Charles Whitman was honorably discharged from the Marines, Lee Harvey Oswald received a hardship discharge from the Marines, which is not a punitive discharge.

Like many of the ideas presented as of late these ideas may seem nice on the surface, but they do not pass scrutiny.