Gun laws you'd realistically like repealed/changed/created?

[ClydeFrog]

Millions affected?....

I disagree about any new firearm or concealed carry law/statue affecting "millions".
If a medical doctor or mental health professional or court official formally states you can't own, carry, use or maintain a firearm or ammunition, then you should not be allowed to get a hunting license or valid concealed carry license(gun permit).

As discussed at length(mostly directly after Sandy Hook 2012), mental health is not the issue. It's allowing people with violent or psychotic tendencies access/ownership of firearms.

Stricter controls & better oversight by mental health workers would keep events like the Chris Kyle murder or Giffords shooting from occurring in the first place.

 

[Tom Servo]

Stricter controls & better oversight by mental health workers would keep events like the Chris Kyle murder or Giffords shooting from occurring in the first place.

Are we sure? Phrased that way, it sounds like we're promising that such measures would prevent future violence. We really can't do that any more than the other side can promise a reduction from tighter controls on guns.

I do want to see a greater emphasis placed on early diagnosis and improved mental-health care in this country. It may help prevent some people from acting out in a violent manner, but I can't make promises.

 

[MTT TL]

I do want to see a greater emphasis placed on early diagnosis and improved mental-health care in this country. It may help prevent some people from acting out in a violent manner, but I can't make promises.

OK

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/10/joe-biden-mental-health_n_4417964.html

The Obama administration has made mental health a focus of efforts to reduce gun violence. Gun control legislation stalled in Congress after the Newtown shooting one year ago Saturday.

See, if only the other side had played nice we would have had mental health reform. The fist part of that paragraph being a complete fabrication.

 

[Tom Servo]

Yes, that's encouraging, but that money's not going to go far. I worry that this will be a one-time thing, and the issue will be forgotten later. Even if the current administration were to place a greater focus on the matter, the next one might very well reverse that course. Let's not forget that President Reagan (oh, how everybody reveres that man...) repealed the Mental Health Systems Act less than a month after being in office, and less than a year after it had been signed.

A year ago, we were supposed to have a conversation about a whole host of issues. We were promised that by the administration. With almost comical speed, everything got thrown out the window but gun control. Why? Because gun control makes for easier slogans and 10-second soundbites. Mental health is complex and not so easy an issue to discuss on talk shows.

 

[Grizz12]

There is nothing you can do to prevent bad people from hurting good people, NOTHING!

There is a high number of LEO's who have been charged with domestic violence and they still have the "right" to carry. They pass mental health exams and still go nut like the cop in Ca. earlier this year.

This isn't an attack on LOE's, its pointing out that even after going through all the exams, bad guys still get passed and allowed to carry.

As it is now, background checks have done nothing to prevent crime or lower the crime rate, look at Chicago gun crimes

 

[Madcap_Magician]

On the universal background checks, there IS a way to do it that does not involve registration of firearms or owners.

Compile a list of all the people who can't legally own guns, make the FBI responsible for maintaining it and making it available to to FFL dealers, then make the FFL dealers responsible for searching it.

This would be similar to a wanted poster database. The FBI is only responsible for maintaining it, not running searches in it. The dealer is the only one who ever sees the buyer information.

 

[carguychris]

Compile a list of all the people who can't legally own guns, make the FBI responsible for maintaining it and making it available to to FFL dealers, then make the FFL dealers responsible for searching it.

Even if I deliberately set aside the civil libertarian arguments against this idea, there are still serious problems with such a "Master List".

Compiling such a list would be a herculean task, if it's even feasible at all. There are serious privacy concerns. The list would be rife with errors and would require constant policing, creating a never-ending financial drain on the agencies responsible for maintaining it. A large part of the list would be superfluous because not every American adult owns or buys guns.

Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, the list would do nothing to address the 68 GCA ownership qualifications that require a self-certification by the prospective purchaser- most significantly, is one a user of controlled substances? IOW with the Master List, some type of background check would still be required!

Compared to the Master List concept, one major advantage of the licensing idea is that submission to the process would remain voluntary to some degree; there would be no effort wasted on people who don't wish to purchase a firearm.

 

[MTT TL]

Let's not forget that President Reagan (oh, how everybody reveres that man...) repealed the Mental Health Systems Act less than a month after being in office, and less than a year after it had been signed.

If you are talking about crazed mass shooters than the net effect would likely have been zero. Most of the crazed mass shooters come from economically well off backgrounds and are not normally impoverished in any way.

 

[leadcounsel]

"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.

I disagree. We see wild swings in Congress and the POTUS every few years or so... the right combination of leaders can sign in some serious pro-gun laws, and tame the ATF quite a lot. And I doubt it would cost much political capital, because none of the fear mongering would come true.

Repealing 922, gun and ammo imports, SBR and SBS laws, would have nearly zero increases in crime and would be HUGE for the economy and gun rights.

We've had some amazing (and close) wins in courts for gun rights. But equally important are the laws that Congress and POTUS enact, or let expire. But for GW Bush appointing several SCOTUS justices, we would have likely LOST some or all of the recent challenges to gun rights in the high courts. But for GW Bush allowing the AWB expire, few of us would have ample 11+ round mags and all the other evil guns that were impacted.

I'm not trying to get political, just pointing out that the Legislative and Executive branches are critically important, and with the right timing and coordinated efforts, we stand to gain serious ground. I predict that the tides are turning in our favor, and 2014, followed by the right POTUS in 2018, might be the right time for us!

We've seen pro-gun folks so outraged in Colorado that they kicked out two antis this year!

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Let's avoid us becoming specifically political.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Have to go now but here's an interesting graphic of gun law changes this year.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...enacted-in-the-year-since-newtown.html?ref=us

Mostly positive but in progun states, negative in the usual suspects.

Some are controversial - Colorado's recalls.

GEM

 

[Tom Servo]

Compile a list of all the people who can't legally own guns, make the FBI responsible for maintaining it and making it available to to FFL dealers, then make the FFL dealers responsible for searching it.

Um, guys? We already have that. The NICS system is supposed to be filling that role. Too bad it's so poorly implemented.

That said, we're back to the notion that mandating background checks will have much of an effect. Lanza was deterred from buying one because of the check, so he resorted to murder and theft. There are already laws against those things.

NPR had an interview today with John Morse, the Colorado senator who got recalled in October. He was unrepentant, claiming that by passing a UBC law, he'd "solved the problem." Next time there's a shooting done by someone who went around the system, they'll decide they didn't solve the problem enough. Then we'll have calls for more restrictive laws, which will also fail to solve the problem enough.

There's an endgame here, and it has little to do with reducing violence.

 

[MTT TL]

Compile a list of all the people who can't legally own guns, make the FBI responsible for maintaining it and making it available to to FFL dealers, then make the FFL dealers responsible for searching it.

Um, guys? We already have that. The NICS system is supposed to be filling that role. Too bad it's so poorly implemented.

That said, we're back to the notion that mandating background checks will have much of an effect. Lanza was deterred from buying one because of the check, so he resorted to murder and theft. There are already laws against those things.

Not only that but with most of these mass shooters the first felony they commit is murder. Their mental illnesses are normally established and well known but not that unusual.

There's an endgame here, and it has little to do with reducing violence.

For other murders the vast majority fall into one of two categories of either familial crime or drug gang crime. Violent sex crimes taking a third place.

 

[Jo6pak]

I'd really like to see national CCW reciprocity. I tour a lot on the motorcycle and just don't want to worry about which states I can carry in or not.

I'd also like to see WI law changed to allow the ownership of non-firing replica firearms.

 

[sigcurious]

I'd like to see my state (NV) actually come up with penalties for local jurisdictions that violate the preemption regarding firearms law. Similarly, I think for many areas getting preemption on the books with limited to no grandfathering would at least clear up a lot of confusion and make future changes or resistance to changes easier for the people of the state(s).

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I would like to see gun carry as a right similar to being a protected class. Thus, businesses or other institutions could not ban carry (assuming your state has such - as most do) unless there is a highly technical reason for such (gun in the MRI).

I know some folks think property rights trump this but protected classes have trumped discrimination. I go for that interpretation.

I am fearful of national concealed carry as such a law might end up with some truly draconian rules. If there was a shall issue for the country that was not oppressive in application - that might work.

 

[Grizz12]

I am fearful of national concealed carry as such a law might end up with some truly draconian rules

Bad guys already carry concealed and they don't need to go through any type of training or background checks, why should I??

 

[Nickel Plated]

This is not a gun law specifically (which might be a good thing since it can be sneaked in without necessarily attracting the attention of all the typical anti-gunners who would kill it)

But I would love to see a law that requires a sunset date for ALL laws passed.
And sets a sunset date for all laws currently on the books that do not have one, perhaps with some formula to assign different dates for different laws so they don't all end up sunsetting at the same time.

People always complain that there are just too many laws on the books. Many of which are just old and irrelevant or have outlived their purpose. Like some of the odd laws you see prohibiting riding a horse through town while wearing a red scarf. it would clean up the books from all the old laws. And also ensure that only laws that are actually doing their jobs and still relevant would remain. Perhaps if a law can't get the votes to be renewed, then it ain't worth having anymore.

This would help us on the gun front because we certainly have plenty of laws that have long outlived their usefulness if they ever had any to begin with (like the suppressor and SBS/SBR restrictions) but are difficult to repeal just because they've always been around. Also it's just much harder to repeal a law than it was to get it passed in the first place.

This would essentially put a test to each law every few years as to whether it's still worth having or not.

 

[jrwhitt]

I've always liked the principle that Robert Heinlin expressed in one of his books.

To pass a law it should take 2/3s of the voters and to repeal only 1/3.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Even if I deliberately set aside the civil libertarian arguments against this idea, there are still serious problems with such a "Master List".

Compiling such a list would be a herculean task, if it's even feasible at all. There are serious privacy concerns. The list would be rife with errors and would require constant policing, creating a never-ending financial drain on the agencies responsible for maintaining it. A large part of the list would be superfluous because not every American adult owns or buys guns.

Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, the list would do nothing to address the 68 GCA ownership qualifications that require a self-certification by the prospective purchaser- most significantly, is one a user of controlled substances? IOW with the Master List, some type of background check would still be required!

Compared to the Master List concept, one major advantage of the licensing idea is that submission to the process would remain voluntary to some degree; there would be no effort wasted on people who don't wish to purchase a firearm.

I'm sorry, but none of this makes sense to me. We already have a Master List, it's called NICS. It needs to be more accurate and better maintained, but you'll have to explain the civil liberties or privacy concerns generated by maintaining a list of felons, persons convicted of domestic violence, and persons involuntarily committed to a mental health institution.

Even if you do consider that a civil liberty issue, I didn't say anything about civil liberties, I only said it was in fact possible to conduct FFL background checks in a manner that did not send buyer or gun data to the federal government.

Um, guys? We already have that. The NICS system is supposed to be filling that role. Too bad it's so poorly implemented.

That said, we're back to the notion that mandating background checks will have much of an effect. Lanza was deterred from buying one because of the check, so he resorted to murder and theft. There are already laws against those things.

NPR had an interview today with John Morse, the Colorado senator who got recalled in October. He was unrepentant, claiming that by passing a UBC law, he'd "solved the problem." Next time there's a shooting done by someone who went around the system, they'll decide they didn't solve the problem enough. Then we'll have calls for more restrictive laws, which will also fail to solve the problem enough.

There's an endgame here, and it has little to do with reducing violence.

Two things- first, you're correct, the database to which I allude is essentially the NICS database. The difference I point out is that by making the dealers responsible for checking that the buyer isn't on the list, you remove the ability of the federal government to maintain any records of guns or gun owners because the buyer and firearm data is never submitted to the federal government, it stays at the dealer level. Contra the current system in which the dealer calls in that data to the federally run NICS system.

Second, I agree that dealer background checks do not stop motivated criminals from getting guns. Background checks do not make it hard for a criminal to get a gun, and few criminals purchase guns from dealers themselves. However, removing dealer background checks would make it easier for criminals to get guns. There would be no need for a black market in guns, for straw purchasers, or for theft, criminals could simply walk into the store and buy them like the rest of us.