Glenn E. Meyer
New member
That's way to broad. Many aspects of the BOR apply to them.
Does any gun control make sense?
- Thread starter stephen426
- Start date
- Status
That's way to broad. Many aspects of the BOR apply to them.
Spats McGee
Administrator
Partially correct, partially incorrect.Sierra280 said:
Correct:
- Felons cannot possess firearms, generally.
- Felons cannot vote, generally.
- Felons are subject to searches of their persons at LEO's will (no more 4A). More correctly stated, felons are subject to searches at the request of their probation and parole officers, for the period during which they remain on probation or parole. That, however, is a matter of contract between the individual on parole or probation and the State.
- Felons are coerced into self-incrimination and generally used however the police care to.
I did not vote, but here is my view.
Once the USA allowed any gun control, many facets of the American democratic experiment were given a death sentence. The need of the elitist to control the actions of the commoner (for a vast array of reasons that do not really matter) is a fundamental tenant of gun control.
Now that we have significant gun control measures in place, can there be a stop-gap that returns freedoms to the commoner while still letting the elitist feel that they are in control? Probably not.
As the .gov grabs power, control and restricts it's people in the guise of "protections", they fundamentally handcuff the force of the free market, liberty of the people and prosperity of the country. Insurance companies, market controls, subsidies, unions, the current tax code, are all anti-freedom, anti-responsibility measures that have become so woven into the fabric of America, that to extract them is likely too damaging at this point.
So, given that, and the fact that we have anti-constitutional laws in place, I would say that any new gun laws will serve no benefit. However, enforcing some of the laws on the books may have a marginal benefit. The 4473, IMHO is a joke. Mental and drug use are not admitted to on the forms and do not really stop those who are a threat to society and themselves to to their choices or, sad as it may be, a mental disorder borne not of their own choices.
Once the USA allowed any gun control, many facets of the American democratic experiment were given a death sentence. The need of the elitist to control the actions of the commoner (for a vast array of reasons that do not really matter) is a fundamental tenant of gun control.
Now that we have significant gun control measures in place, can there be a stop-gap that returns freedoms to the commoner while still letting the elitist feel that they are in control? Probably not.
As the .gov grabs power, control and restricts it's people in the guise of "protections", they fundamentally handcuff the force of the free market, liberty of the people and prosperity of the country. Insurance companies, market controls, subsidies, unions, the current tax code, are all anti-freedom, anti-responsibility measures that have become so woven into the fabric of America, that to extract them is likely too damaging at this point.
So, given that, and the fact that we have anti-constitutional laws in place, I would say that any new gun laws will serve no benefit. However, enforcing some of the laws on the books may have a marginal benefit. The 4473, IMHO is a joke. Mental and drug use are not admitted to on the forms and do not really stop those who are a threat to society and themselves to to their choices or, sad as it may be, a mental disorder borne not of their own choices.
Non-US citizen chiming in:
I believe that all potential firearm owners should undergo ONE and ONE ONLY comprehensive police background check and do a safety course (written and hands-on) that is relevant to the type(s) of firearms they intend to own (easily extensible to all types with enough imagination, and the NRA/NSSF could design and administer the course). Once this was passed, it would be a shall-issue matter.
They should then receive a licence which would be shown at the counter whenever they purchase firearms, ammo, primers or powder. No swipe, no ping to a central registry, nothing - just a visual check at the counter before the money got laid down.
Current CCW/open carry permits could remain, and would substitute for the licence. Current firearm owners could, on producing proof of legal ownership, be granted their licences automatically. LEO and military would be granted automatic licences and given the option to retain them after retirement/honourable discharge.
Non licence holders would be permitted to shoot under the direct supervision of a sober adult (18+) licence holder who was the owner of the firearm or a designated/qualified instructor or RSO.
Nobody could have their licence removed without first being arrested, tried and convicted of a felony.
I believe that all potential firearm owners should undergo ONE and ONE ONLY comprehensive police background check and do a safety course (written and hands-on) that is relevant to the type(s) of firearms they intend to own (easily extensible to all types with enough imagination, and the NRA/NSSF could design and administer the course). Once this was passed, it would be a shall-issue matter.
They should then receive a licence which would be shown at the counter whenever they purchase firearms, ammo, primers or powder. No swipe, no ping to a central registry, nothing - just a visual check at the counter before the money got laid down.
Current CCW/open carry permits could remain, and would substitute for the licence. Current firearm owners could, on producing proof of legal ownership, be granted their licences automatically. LEO and military would be granted automatic licences and given the option to retain them after retirement/honourable discharge.
Non licence holders would be permitted to shoot under the direct supervision of a sober adult (18+) licence holder who was the owner of the firearm or a designated/qualified instructor or RSO.
Nobody could have their licence removed without first being arrested, tried and convicted of a felony.
stephen426
New member
Just checking in here guys. I have been super busy with work so I have not had time to respond yet. Thanks for the mostly civil responses. I am sure that most of you are surprised by the number of votes we had for sensible gun control.
While we can argue that mass shootings are just a small fraction of overall deaths and that overall shootings are down, I don't believe that we should just accept that mass shootings are a part of life and that we are completely powerless to stop them.
The fact that gun laws are not being prosecuted or stupid gun laws being on the book does not mean that there are no laws that can stem mass shootings.
I fully understand the argument that criminals will ignore gun laws. My main thought is preventing mentally unstable people to from walking into a gun store and legally acquiring a firearm. Now if said unstable person stole a firearm or illegally obtained it, no law or regulation would stop that.
The other issue is training. As I have mentioned, there is absolutely NO training requirement for buying a deadly weapon and in most states, no proof of capability. As responsible gun owners and gun enthusiasts, I believe TFL members tend to have a higher than average knowledge of guns and are much safer than the "average" gun owner. Maybe there could be a pamphlet that is similar to the "Lemon Law" booklet that is given with each automobile purchase (in the US). This booklet would have a minimal cost and would cover basic, but crucial safe handling and storage practices. This booklet and fee can probably be waived for concealed permit holders since all states require some form of training to receive a permit. I would also like to see some standardization of these concealed weapons courses, maybe even a booklet put together by the NRA, to standardize the information and give people something to refer to.
While I know some of you consider any legislation as a gun grab/erosion of basic rights, some laws do make sense. We should keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and illegal aliens. I also agree with the age restrictions on gun ownership.
Again, thanks for the mostly civil responses and for your feedback.
While we can argue that mass shootings are just a small fraction of overall deaths and that overall shootings are down, I don't believe that we should just accept that mass shootings are a part of life and that we are completely powerless to stop them.
The fact that gun laws are not being prosecuted or stupid gun laws being on the book does not mean that there are no laws that can stem mass shootings.
I fully understand the argument that criminals will ignore gun laws. My main thought is preventing mentally unstable people to from walking into a gun store and legally acquiring a firearm. Now if said unstable person stole a firearm or illegally obtained it, no law or regulation would stop that.
The other issue is training. As I have mentioned, there is absolutely NO training requirement for buying a deadly weapon and in most states, no proof of capability. As responsible gun owners and gun enthusiasts, I believe TFL members tend to have a higher than average knowledge of guns and are much safer than the "average" gun owner. Maybe there could be a pamphlet that is similar to the "Lemon Law" booklet that is given with each automobile purchase (in the US). This booklet would have a minimal cost and would cover basic, but crucial safe handling and storage practices. This booklet and fee can probably be waived for concealed permit holders since all states require some form of training to receive a permit. I would also like to see some standardization of these concealed weapons courses, maybe even a booklet put together by the NRA, to standardize the information and give people something to refer to.
While I know some of you consider any legislation as a gun grab/erosion of basic rights, some laws do make sense. We should keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and illegal aliens. I also agree with the age restrictions on gun ownership.
Again, thanks for the mostly civil responses and for your feedback.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
pathdoc said:
Not necessarily endorsing the rest of your plan (though it would beat to hell out of what we have now) but I do believe at the very least this should read violent felony or quite possibly "crime of violence". There are quite a few felonies that should not in any way shape or form be restrictions against the person at all and a few things classified as misdemeanors that very well SHOULD restrict a person for life. Think Martha Stewart. She's a felon, why shouldn't she be allowed to own guns? On the other hand, a guy could be convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence 25 times and still own guns if it's just "felony".
Um, IIRC domestic violence in at least the two states I have lived in, once convicted you are prohibited from firearms ownership.
I could be wrong since like the drunk driving laws I don't pay much attention to. You see I don't consume alcohol or get violent with any family member no matter how angry they make me!
Mel
I could be wrong since like the drunk driving laws I don't pay much attention to. You see I don't consume alcohol or get violent with any family member no matter how angry they make me!
Mel
Oh, cool, another pamphlet with my new gun. I get the juvenile firearms storage act one, the cool lock, the chamber flag...and now another pamphlet. That ought to REALLY cut back on negligent discharges and other firearms misuse...
Seriously, this 'we have to do SOMETHING!!!' mentality is just wrong, and counterproductive.
Violent crime is going DOWN; CCW, among other things, is lowering crime nation-wide (except in heavily gun controlled areas like Chiraq...)so stop buying into the media hysteria already.
Larry
Seriously, this 'we have to do SOMETHING!!!' mentality is just wrong, and counterproductive.
Violent crime is going DOWN; CCW, among other things, is lowering crime nation-wide (except in heavily gun controlled areas like Chiraq...)so stop buying into the media hysteria already.
Larry
The problem with that(or at least ONE problem with that), and why we do background checks at the Point of Sale is because something may have changed since the last background check. The US is extremely large. When Johnny loses his right to firearms, the government may not be able to find Johnny to be able to take away his license.
Additionally you've just turned it into a hybrid right, or possibly a super privilege. One of the lawyers on here did a pretty good post explaining privilege vs rights a while back, and if I knew where, I'd point you to it.
Basically the government can't stop you from exercising a right without good reason. They can shut down any and all privileges at any time for no reason. One of the tenets of our system is that you can't license a right. A license is the power to permit, and to deny. You can't license a right. If it's illegal to do something without a license it isn't a right, and right now, it is a right.
I don't know of any jurisdiction that issues open carry permits. Some places allow open carry only to those with a concealed carry permit, but generally speaking open carry is usually either legal without any sort of permit, or attached to a concealed carry permit itself. That doesn't mean much, but you mentioned being not from the US, so I wanted to correct a misconception
On point, our concealed carry permit paradigm is quite possibly the stupidest thing about our gun laws. A permit basically says, OK first we trusted you to get a gun and not do anything illegal with it. Like carrying it around when you're not supposed to. But if you get this special permit we'll let you carry it around and trust you not to do anything illegal with it. Not directly the sae, as cars are privileges not rights, but imagine needing a license to buy a car, and then needing ANOTHER license to DRIVE that car. For a right, imagine passing a background check to let you have a verbal argument with your wife. However to have that same verbal argument with your wife on the street in front of your house - that might lead to a physical confrontation in either place- you need a license.
That sounds reasonable. But there are a lot of real world complications that will make it a bad thing, in the long run.
one has already been pointed out, that things might change between your passing the background check/safety course, and you buying a gun, maybe years later.
Another is the idea of the NRA/NSSF giving the course. We've already been doing that, sort of, for a long time. In some ways it has worked well enough, but in others it has not. Here are some examples..
NRA Hunter Safety course. Given by unpaid volunteers, who are NRA certified as instructors. NRA provides the course materials, and the instructors provide their own time, and often location. The state requires completion of such a course (or equivalent) in order to get a hunting license.
This has worked pretty well for many generations.
The other side of the coin; a state requires a "safety class" before allowing a handgun license to be issued. Fine. We all believe in safety, right?
The state provides no funding for the class. They do "approve" the NRA certified guys to give the class. and the class is a 4 hr course.
Sounds reasonable, right?
BUT, over time, the 4 hr requirement becomes 8, then a few years later, 24hrs, and later 40hrs are "needed" before the state will "recognize" you have the necessary training.
Also, at the same time, more and more reporting and other requirements are put on the volunteers giving the course, and so, over time, fewer and fewer people are willing to do it, so there are fewer and fewer classes.
one eastern state I know has done this, over the last 40 years.
One Midwestern state went this route, requiring a "safety class", giving in the permit holders own district, and was needed to even RENEW a permit. When the system had worked it "magic" to the point where there were only about 3 classes being given, in the entire state!, and was denying permit renewals based on not being able to get into a class, some folks took them to court. Eventually, that system was changed. But it did take more than a little time, and effort (and money) to do so.
Until, and unless, you can come up with some kind of program that is absolutely impervious to the creeping incrementalism of the bureaucracy AND the efforts of the anti-gun bigots in government, until you can do that, I'll pass on the idea of mandated safety training.
I believe the old saying that "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions", still applies today. You want something good, for all of us, but the path you would take, will not, in the end, get us there. Rather the opposite, I believe.
Unless that class is given in a mandatory school setting i.e. Senior Year of High School that even the home-schoolers have to go through, as well as any citizenship curriculum for immigrants, etc. I don't know how they can require a class for a right. We've tried to require competency tests for rights in the past and it wasn't a good thing.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
stephen426 said:
No; but it does mean that the same people who are currently imprisoning law abiding peaceable gun owners over things like having a misfired shotgun shell in Washington D.C. and at the same time failing to even try and prosecute thousands of NICS denials are going to be the people who implement whatever "law that can stem mass shootings" that you come up with.
Which means that the law you come up with won't be used to stem mass shootings; but it sure will be used to harass gun owners with no previous criminal records. Which not surprisingly, tends to explain why so many gun owners oppose giving the other side more sticks to beat them with.
The first step in negotiations is to establish that both parties are dealing in good faith. When you are using the existing gun laws to arrest people who have committed the heinous crime of being forced into an unplanned layover in New York while flying with their firearm, that isn't good faith. When you are arresting decorated veterans for having an empty magazine in their car when they visit the hospital, that isn't good faith.
If you are really so concerned about passing more gun laws, then you should recognize that the biggest barrier to that is the abuse of existing gun laws.
Only two of your proposals make any real sense; Felons and illegal aliens not allowed to own guns and Adjudicated mentally ill not allowed to own guns; Crimes with a gun deserve more time than 5 to 10. CCWs are a right, not a privilege; NICS system is "presumed guilty until proven innocent" no matter where it is performed; And the NFA was the most contrived politically motivated gun control ever, and was tacitly based on ethnic prejudice, primarily against Italians and Irish, as well as a fear of overthrow of the government, since the depression years were the closest this country has ever come to succumbing to a Communist takeover from within.
Other than no guns for felons and mentally ill, the only "sensible" gun law to me would be one that mandated some kind of proficiency requirement (with NO permanent record keeping) before a person obtained a firearm. I hate to say it, but I have seen (and known) too many people that shouldn't own a gun, 2nd Amendment notwithstanding.
Its ALL political nonsense!
Based on what makes sense to you, I would put you reaching the age of majority after 1968. Probably well after.
What the laws are, when we grow up, we tend to believe are sensible, right, and the proper way to do things. Even though it may BE tyranny, we seldom see it as such.
Laws passed AFTER we are grown up, we can often clearly see as tyranny.
Before 68, Felons, after their release, could legally own a gun. Even people who have done bad things still had the right to a gun for personal protection, AFTER they had done their time.
Guns could be mailed back and forth through the US Postal system, WITHOUT having to go through a gun dealer.
Gun dealers did not have to have Federal licenses. Imported guns did not have to pass an arbitrary "sporting purposes" test.
Theses and a lot of other things were the normal, and accepted way of life before 1968.
Some of what "makes sense" to you is tyranny to me, most likely because our frames of reference are different.
- Status