Gun laws you'd realistically like repealed/changed/created?

[Madcap_Magician]

Asking for the creation of a state law that limits the power of the federal government is a fantasy, and an unconstitutional one.

A constitutional and reasonable means to accomplish the same goal would be multiple successful lawsuits by the states establishing jurisprudential backing against the overreach of the federal government beyond its enumerated powers.

The commerce clause is probably the part of the Constitution whose jurisprudence needs the most revisiting (and trimming).

 

[Spats McGee]

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?

It's been a while since I read that bill in-depth, and it may well do what you say. As I recall, though, there were a couple of clauses that gave me pause. In all honesty, I don't recall exactly what they were, though.

And you are correct that, at this point, it's still a lot of "what-ifs." Consider this "what-if," though: Once the feds pass a bill mandating CC reciprocity, what's to stop it from dictating licensure requirements?

That's one of the reasons that I'd be much more comfortable with something like a "Concealed Carry Compact," rather than federally-mandated reciprocity.

 

[cannonfire]

Inside the quote box, you enter = and the username.

Learn something new every day. Thank you

 

[Gaerek]

It's been a while since I read that bill in-depth, and it may well do what you say. As I recall, though, there were a couple of clauses that gave me pause. In all honesty, I don't recall exactly what they were, though.

And you are correct that, at this point, it's still a lot of "what-ifs." Consider this "what-if," though: Once the feds pass a bill mandating CC reciprocity, what's to stop it from dictating licensure requirements?

That's one of the reasons that I'd be much more comfortable with something like a "Concealed Carry Compact," rather than federally-mandated reciprocity.

I've been thinking more and more about it. Although there's a part of me that get's giddy with joy thinking about not worrying about reciprocity anymore, I'm thinking long run, federally mandated reciprocity just might not be the best thing.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...A constitutional and reasonable means to accomplish the same goal would be multiple successful lawsuits by the states establishing jurisprudential backing against the overreach of the federal government beyond its enumerated powers...

That's not always going to work either. It's not the role of a court to decide if the result is good or bad. It's the job of a court to apply the Constitution and applicable precedent to decide the case. The result of applying the Constitution and precedent can in fact be unsatisfactory to you.

Whenever a court makes a major decision that one disagrees with, the judicial system is broken and the judges corrupt. Whenever a court makes a major decision that one agrees with, the judges are great scholars (except any dissenters, who are corrupt), and our courts are the last bulwark against the machination of the political toadies bought and paid for by special interests. There has been, and probably always will be, a huge negative reaction by a large number of people to every important to the public Supreme Court decision. There are plenty of folks who loved Roe v. Wade and hated Heller, and perhaps as many who hated Roe v. Wade and loved Heller.

We could think that a law is a bad idea or bad public policy, and that law could be entirely within the power of Congress to enact and perfectly constitutional. Being constitutional does not guarantee that a law is a good thing.

On the other hand, it's not necessary to legislate at the outer-reaches of constitutionality. We could work at electing thoughtful legislators who will exercise some restraint.

Yes, that sounds very much like a fantasy, but things like that have happened -- checks and balances at work. Not long ago there was the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). It was a ruling on a technical point of eminent domain law (specifically involving the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to the States through the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "public use"). The result (a very broad interpretation of "public use") was found to be unsatisfactory by many. As a consequence, the legislatures of 42 States revised those States' eminent domain laws to avoid a Kelo result.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Clyde - that mental health provision is terrible and way too broad. It would sweep in millions and have no real noticeable effect.

 

[Chaz88]

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.

Then comes the classic problem with this kind of idea. What is the specifics of the qualifier and who decides?

I have spent a great deal of time on TFL and by some standards am at times aggressively confrontational.

Spends a lot of time on impersonal gun website = ant-social

Questions other peoples comments, sometimes with strong language = aggressive and confrontational.

AND! it is on a site about guns not fluffy stuffed animals. THINK OF THE CHILDREN AND TAKE AWAY HIS RIGHTS NOW!

 

[Tom Servo]

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.

Maybe, but maybe not. Consider South Carolina. Their reciprocity agreements are really screwy, and they've resisted loosening them up. I don't think they'd be too enthusiastic about federal interference.

Then there are the somewhat restrictive states like Connecticut, who aren't going to take kindly to folks from Georgia carrying when Georgia has no training requirement.

Then there's New York, California, and the like, who have the clout to kill such a bill.

No, the whole thing needs to be resolved on a state-by-state level when possible. The only other thing that might spur some reform would be a finding from the Supreme Court that carry outside the home is a right, but they've resisted hearing our cases on that.

 

[MTT TL]

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.

This was the idea behind LEOSA and that just barely squeaked through. I suppose if they made a voluntary system where you would have to comply by all the same requirements as LEOs (Full background investigation, finger printing, annual fire arms qualification, clean and sober while carrying etc, etc) some would go for it. It would be like getting a gun in DC.

 

[44 AMP]

How? (44A, I'm not writing this to belittle you. I'm genuinely interested in your answer.)

Don't worry, I'm too big a person (especially around the middle) to feel belittled.

You do it by not making the check about the gun, but about the person.

cannonfire basically gets it. It doesn't matter what gun, if you are not a prohibited person, you are not a prohibited person.

people have said, "prove you had a background check done on that gun" which, of course would not work without registration. But why would "that gun" matter?

When the UBC was the hot topic, there was talk about how, if the law passed, situations might arise where one might have to prove that a gun was owned before the UBC law went into effect, and also possibly having to prove that you had a BC done (after the law was in effect) in regards to a specific firearm. There was a lot of talk. Most of it focused on using the gun as the identifier for the BC. This was my major objection, because, as many others also saw, such a system would mean full registration of everything in order to function.

I believe that those who chose that focus for their system did so with the intent to create full registration. And that was why it should have been (and was) opposed. Not because of what was claimed to be the result, but because of the way that they wanted to do it.

Every time I have gone through the instant phone check, they never include any information about the gun, other than long gun, or handgun. (and I don't know why they bother with that, the age check for handgun is done by the dealer long before he ever gets on the phone)

The check is done on ME, and that, by itself, creates no registration of the gun. You can say it creates a registration of me (or you), but I am already so "registered" with our government its a matter of no concern to me.

one thing that has always irked me, is the check each and every time I buy a gun. A sensible system would seem to me that if you had a gun, then any kind of "check" or waiting period to see if you were likely to harm someone with a gun you were thinking of buying is rather pointless.

Sure, things can change, you might have turned into a bad guy, but if you did, no check or waiting period can have any kind of effect on public safety, as you already have (at least) one gun! Just seems like closing the barn door after the horse is already gone...

My state has a waiting period for handgun purchase. Unless you have a CHL. Then, no waiting period. While I do not agree with the waiting period concept, I always thought that if you had to have one, that was a sensible way to do it.

 

[Tom Servo]

one thing that has always irked me, is the check each and every time I buy a gun. A sensible system would seem to me that if you had a gun, then any kind of "check" or waiting period to see if you were likely to harm someone with a gun you were thinking of buying is rather pointless

That's because the FBI must destroy records of checks the day after a completed check. This is to prevent them from compiling a master list of gun owners.

As for UBC's and verification, I'd be hard pressed to find an enforceable method that wouldn't involve registration. The people pushing it won't settle for something that can't be enforced. Even if registration wasn't the intent, it would be the outcome at some point.

And for what? We went over 200 years without background checks, and the Republic still stood. Given the durability of guns, I wouldn't be surprised if most guns in this country were never subject to background checks. The Brady Act hasn't been shown to have reduced crime in the least, so why expand it?

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Well, I can see how UBCs could be done without registration. You simply don't enter any of the gun data. It's irrelevant.

Tom wants to buy a gun from Brian. Tom is checked and cleared to buy the gun.

It could be done very much like a drivers license actually. No check needs even be run every time. No body checks your license every time you drive a car. If you become prohibited, you must turn in your gun card. Until then, anyone who has the cards may buy and sell and will, no checks of any kind. That's just as "universal" and getting it done every time. If the gun grabbers were really scared but still willing to compromise (yeah right), there could simply be an 800 number to call, enter the persons gun card number and get a "valid" or "invalid".

I don't support UBCs but I do see how it could be done without registration.

Obviously, there'd be plenty of folks who'd simply ignore the whole system but that exists with every system. There's people who own and fly airplanes without a license.

 

[Spats McGee]

Actually, Brian, that system merely changes it from registration of guns to registration of gun owners.

Is that really any better?

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Actually, Brian, that system merely changes it from registration of guns to registration of gun owners.



Is that really any better?

I wouldn't be in favor of either but if I had to pick, yeah, I'd say it's better. You're registered as a potential owner, no saying whether you actual do or don't own any, or how many, or what they are.

 

[Tom Servo]

You're registered as a potential owner, no saying whether you actual do or don't own any, or how many, or what they are.

Yeah, but I'd rather we didn't have it either way, and I don't see anything good of accepting it.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

As the NRA is aware (talked to the NRA fellows involved), the recording of phone calls on 4473s by the NSA probably constitutes an illegal record of such. Hello - drone!!

 

[Spats McGee]

Actually, Brian, that system merely changes it from registration of guns to registration of gun owners.

Is that really any better?

I wouldn't be in favor of either but if I had to pick, yeah, I'd say it's better. You're registered as a potential owner, no saying whether you actual do or don't own any, or how many, or what they are.

We can agree that neither of us would be in favor of either kind of registration, but I have to disagree that "owner registration" is any better than "gun registration." Every US citizen is a "potential owner," as are several other classes of folks. I can't put much stock in the idea that registration (of gun owners) as "not saying whether you actually do or don't own any," as I can't see non-owners jumping through the hoops necessary to register as a potential owner of something they don't have.

Even if we overlook that part for just a moment, I have some troubles on the enforceability side of the equation. I see owner registration as unenforceable as against prohibited persons (A5, Haynes v. U.S, etc.). Two results that I see:

(a) a non-prohibited person caught buying a gun without having registered as a potential owner becomes a felon; but
(b) a felon caught buying a gun without having registered as a potential owner:

(i) may be convicted of being a felon in possession; but
(ii) cannot be convicted for failing to register.​

That violates my "Bad Guys First" rule. You know, the one that says, "You want to take away my guns? Bad Guys First!"

 

[SHE3PDOG]

I just read an article about NYC 5 round mag limit for longarms. I think that could realistically get pushed back under the Heller case due to the common use of longarms with the capability to hold more than 5 rounds.

As for the CA CC stuff, a similar legal battle was just fought in IL and won. I don't see why the same principles that were used there couldn't apply to CA. Perhaps I am naive, but I would gladly donate to any organization that showed a real possibility of getting these laws removed.

I do think that a lot of the other suggestions are a little over the top, but maybe if we continue to chisel away at the issue, we can gain some traction for other stuff that seems a little unrealistic right now.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

That violates my "Bad Guys First" rule. You know, the one that says, "You want to take away my guns? Bad Guys First!"

No disagreement, in principle, but we already have that situation in a number of laws anyway and the concept has been upheld in court.

Consider also NY State's current handgun permit system. I'm not only registered as an "potential" owner, I'm registered as an ACTUAL owner with the exact and only permissible handguns listed by serial number on my permit. It is illegal for me to so much as HANDLE (possess) someone else's handguns, say nothing of fire them.

I would much rather we had a system that was something along the lines of an endorsement on my driver's license that simply showed that I was eligible to possess firearms.

Since we're clearly on the "dream road" here anyway, my suggestion would be to simply have ALL non-prohibited persons have the endorsement. You don't have to ask for it, you can decline it if you are essentially a conscientious objector.

What I'd much rather do is have a system that actually complied with both the NY Civil Rights law and the COTUS but how far do we want to go down the dream road? We certainly know that's never going to happen.

 

[44 AMP]

Given the durability of guns, I wouldn't be surprised if most guns in this country were never subject to background checks.

Right there, Tom, they got ya! Background check on the gun.

What is a background check on a gun going to tell anyone? New gun, what dealer has it? We already know that. Used gun? When/where made, what dealer shipped to, who was the original purchaser? Maybe. But likely nothing of much use.

Any gun made and sold before 1968 doesn't even require a serial number. Gun dealers were not Federally licensed before then, either. There are no records in any accessible system about ANY of those guns, unless they have passed through a dealer since then, and records of those are at each dealer, or warehoused by the Fed (for dealers who have gone out of business). Hardly anything that could be checked, and not in any form that can be used without a lot of effort.

I believe there is a way to do it without "checking the gun". Its just not what the anti's want.