Gun laws you'd realistically like repealed/changed/created?

[MTT TL]

A Certificate of Marriage is an official record that is recognized by other states.

Sometimes not. My state does not recognize same sex marriages no matter the form or where they are from.

I'd like to see nationwide CCW reciprocity.

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.

 

[Grizz12]

you guys are nit picking, we need to eliminate all gun laws and make firearm safety classes mandatory in all grade levels

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

That would also be fantasy land.

That's my point. People are talking about these laws being repealed but that's completely and totally unrealistic. That's why I ask for their "realistic path" to the repeal of those laws. There isn't one. There's a theoretical path but not a realistic one, much like building a time machine.

I don't see ANY federal level gun law with a realistic chance of repeal.

Frankly, given the current political and judicial climate, I don't see any effective means of repealing state laws.

The judiciary would need to "man up" and slap down the legislatures when laws that have been struck down are simply rewritten in another intentionally unconstitutional way.

The courts have shown no propensity to do that, so the unconstitutional laws will simply continue to be rewritten as new unconstitutional laws, ad nauseum.

 

[Gaerek]

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.

It's possible I'm wrong, but I doubt this would happen. It would likely work similarly to how drivers from one state can drive in other states. You have a license that is recognized by every state in the Union, but you must follow the laws of whatever state you are currently in. We don't see the Feds interferring and making more strict laws about driving between states.

Besides, we already have a model for nationwide concealed carry with LEOSA, and that's exactly how it works. The Fed's haven't made it more difficult to carry in general. The only caveat (which exists already in states with reciprocity) is that you must follow the laws of the state you're carrying in.

I'd be OK with this. If this allowed me to carry anywhere in the US, I'd just make sure I was up on all the laws of whatever state I was going to. Being able to carry in more places, is better than being able to carry in less places.

The only decent argument I've seen against nationwide reciprocity is that it takes away from states sovereignty. Seeing as though this should already be covered under the Full Faith and Credit clause, it really isn't taking away from a states sovereignty. It's something that is already covered under the Constitution.

 

[doofus47]

BrianP

That's my point. People are talking about these laws being repealed but that's completely and totally unrealistic. That's why I ask for their "realistic path" to the repeal of those laws. There isn't one. There's a theoretical path but not a realistic one, much like building a time machine

Ok, so just to play the devil's advocate, would you trade universal background checks (w/no paper trail?) for a repeal of the NFA, 1986 registration, etc?

Ok, I know that UBC doesn't work w/out registration. It's still fantasy land, but it's a "compromise." I'm just saying, you know, for the sake of throwing gas on this fire...

 

[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]

The states voluntarily choose to honor each other's drivers licenses. No law compels them to do so.

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.

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]

...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]

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 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]

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]

Gun/CCW laws....

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:

(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.