If We Had To Swallow One New Gun Control Law, Which One?

Least damaging gun control measure

  • Universal Background Check

    Votes: 28 73.7%

  • Assault Weapons Ban

    Votes: 1 2.6%

  • Ban/limit Online Sales of Guns and Ammo

    Votes: 2 5.3%

  • Firearm Purchase Limits

    Votes: 6 15.8%

  • Excise Tax on Guns And Ammo

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Total voters
    38
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
5

5whiskey

New member
I am of like mind with almost everyone here. I do not care to be burdened with any new gun control measure, especially since even existing gun control has little proven efficacy. This is a simple hypothetical exercise... if we had to agree to one new gun control law, what would do the least damage? I get it... not one more inch. I agree. Alas, sometimes we have to give up ground on an issue that is most important to us when we don’t want to. Such is the nature of life, and politics. So I ask the question, between the options given, which guns control measure would you take first over all others if we had to have one? Why?

My personal choice is UBCs. Why? Well if all is required is a NICS check similar to when buying from an FFL, even for private parties, this would (IMO) do the least damage. Yeah it would stifle private party sales some, and probably increase purchase expenses such as a fee to use an FFL. This would still be the easiest pill for me to swallow, so long as exceptions were made to exclude the criminalization of lending or gifting of firearms to close family.

An AWB is a no-go for me, even though I shoot more .303 British and 7.5 Swiss than I do 5.56 or 7.62x39. ARs and AKs are the militia rifle of modern era, akin to the Brown Bess of the Revolution. I so believe in the importance of an armed populace as a firewall against an oppressive government I believe a federal AWB would be nigh an act that could lead to bad things in this country.

Online sales are not quite as constitutionally protected, but boy it sure is nice to buy components, parts, and ammo online. To shut down online G&A sales would also kill a lot of people’s livelihood. I admit that I buy a lot of reloading components online, and this would affect me a good bit. So my interest here is partly selfish.

I’m torn on the purchase limit. Whether anyone admits it or not, there are people out there who straw purchase firearms to distribute to felons and street thugs. It’s rare, but it has existed at least once because I met someone who did. Purchase limits MAY would dampen some of that activity, but it would also hinder much more perfectly legal activity. An example, milsurp collectors who buy 3 or 4 similar rifles in bulk from J&G or another distributor, keep the best specimen, and then sell the rest over time to further their collection.

Lastly... just no on an excise tax. It’s regressive and would hurt poor families who want protection. And it would hurt me a lot.


So what say you.
 
None of the current ideas from the DNC.

A while back, we discussed how to make UBCs work while still safeguarding privacy and not have to pay a third party to run the check. That's not being proposed in any legislature or from any think tank I know of. (Basically, a two part system where the buyer runs a check on themselves, which generates a code. The seller then runs the code and gets a go/no-go on the validity of the code. The system would also have to be limited in its records-keeping ability, so as to keep privacy.)
 
My concern with UBC

The Devil in the details. You have a bureaucracy with the ability to make regulations with force of law.

How do you enforce compliance with UBC? How do you control a transfer to a friend or relative? The question is not about "Just do the background check"
Its about what mechanism of enforcement will be created.

If I had to create such a system,I'd want to track change. In order to do that,I'd need to have an inventory of every gun you have. I'd need to be able to physically audit your premises. If your registered inventory was 3 shotguns,2 handguns,and 3 rifles,make,model and SNs...That had better be your inventory upon inspection. If you add or subtract from your registered inventory,without a record of the UBC, or a theft police report, you will be assumed guilty of violating the UBC,which will likely be a felony,like the rest of the BATF infractions.

Myself, with the laws we have today, in most cases I would have a transfer done at an FFL to protect myself. The transfer establishes a timeline that either connects or separates me from any misdeeds the firearm may be associated with.
If I get a kmock on the door looking for a Mossberg 500 with my name on the 4473,I don't want to be in the position of telling the investigator "Well,I sold it to this guy....He paid cash...etc,etc....
So right now,I comply to take care of myself.

I believe with the UBC,my 4th Amendment ,5th Amendment,and 2nd Amendment protections will be severely compromised.

I just don't get offering up chunks of liberty to give away. Its not ours to give.It belongs to our Grandchildren.
 
You really, REALLY need a "none of the above" button.

NO, no, no to any new taxes

NO to any kind of purchase limits. Forget strawman purchases, they are ALREADY covered under existing law, and limiting purchases does NOTHING but infringe on your right to spend your own money as you please.

NO to ending online sales. ALL "online" firearms sales FOLLOW EXISTING LAW, and DO got through an FFL. Ending online sale of ammo and components is a chickenspit cheap shot to try and keep gun enthusiasts from being able to enjoy their LEGAL hobby, not to mention an infringement of our rights.

ANY restriction of online anything is something the market, NOT the government should decide.

NO to any kind of AWB, its a made up BS term and frankly I think its wrong to legally prohibit any firearm because it SCARES someone...

As to UBC, again, NO, at the root it is an insult, a guilty until proven innocent assumption, which has no place anywhere, and particularly concerning a fundamental civil right. THe idea of certain people shouldn't have guns is valid, but the UBC we're offered (and in some states required already) isn't UBC, its UBS, (universal BS) There is a way to do it without a registration component, but we are NOT being offered that.

In my state the law requiring the check is so badly written that the LEOs are refusing to enforce it (pending further clarification, and its been several years now, and clarification is still not forthcoming...).

SO, no, thank you, none of the above. Same thing I'd say if you asked which poison I'd choose. because I simply don't HAVE to take any willingly or gladly.
 
Agreed,44AMP. "None of the above"

Remember,we aren't just considering which of OUR "Granted by Our Creator" rights we are compromising,or giving up.

Instead,consider how you would answer "Which one of your children will you offer to be violated"
 
I have the misfortune of living in a state that already has the functional equivalent of universal background checks. As long as I can remember, all transfers of handguns required a permission slip from the state police. The law was revised in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school massacre to include long guns. I can still sell a firearm to someone in-state without going through an FFL, but to do so I have to call the state police and get an authorization number for the transfer. That number is entered on a form, which includes the buyer's and seller's names and addresses and which the seller has to send in to the state police.

It hasn't in any way stopped the sales of stolen firearms on street corners late at night. The bad guys all still have guns, and none of them went through background checks to get them.

It's a joke ... except that it's not funny. It's another feel good law that has no hope of accomplishing its stated goal.
 
If taken literally an AWB would be harmless seeing as none of what they refer to assault weapons in these cases are actually assault weapons.

They'd be banning something that no one actually buys or owns....
 
Last edited:
If taken literally an AWB would be harmless seeing as none of what they refer to assault weapons in these cases are actually assault weapons.

They'd be banning something that no one actually buys or owns....
Click to expand...

...until they change their definitions without risk of repercussion to include anything they missed the first several times around. Like Aguila said: "Nibble Nibble.. gimme all your cake, peasant."
 
I intend to ignore any of the above. (I don't buy many guns; I have so many already. So the purchase limits won't apply)
 
I’d have to say none of the above myself, as well. No gun law will stop bad people from doing bad things. All they do is limit the law-abiding person and gives the evil people more leverage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I would support removing the excise tax from guns and ammo, that's the only new gun law that makes sense to me. I would also like to make guns and ammo tax free as it should be, no sales tax.
 
None of the above.

Most of us are old enough to remember when there was no gun control compared to know and life was better. The difference and solution to me is responsibility. Gun safety was taught to me by my oldest brother. I had the bb gun in my hand and he said, "here are two rules.. "First, "never point a gun at anyone". Second, "listen to what I tell you". Me, "uh,huh". Now, "point the gun at me". I did and he slapped my across the head. "Remember rule 1!" I never forgot it.
 
IQ tests! If we prohibited stupid people from owning / obtaining guns (or posting online :D), the world would be a far safer place.
 
pete2 said:
I would support removing the excise tax from guns and ammo, that's the only new gun law that makes sense to me. I would also like to make guns and ammo tax free as it should be, no sales tax.
Click to expand...

If my understanding of an excise tax is more or less considered as a “sin tax”, I could see getting rid of that on everything that a tax like that would apply to because I don’t think the government should have such a right to impose a tax like that on us that’s meant to “discourage us from spending money on those items” but as far as sales tax, that applies to everything you buy so that will never go away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mandatory gun safety in every elementary and high school would be very effective along with the 2nd Amendment, I believe. Include auto accident photos like we had to see for Drivers Ed. This will educate Liberal educated youths that move to places like Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, Arizona, and Texas.
 
What these kind of polls need are options that place an emphasis on the criminals, like punishment
Click to expand...

That actually should be a strategy of the pro-gun caucus. Instead of negotiating on terms that take away the rights of law abiding citizens, offer terms that actually put teeth in current law to criminals. Being charged with a gun crime would hurt us, because then we would forever be prohibited persons and it would change our hobby and lifestyle significantly. Getting charged with a 2nd or 3rd gun (or any) crime doesn’t really affect a criminal so much. He/she will do their couple of years (which they would have done for something else anyway, and all of that stuff will likely disappear in a plea deal), get out, then continue their nefarious deeds.

Once again I don’t support any of the options. The question is a hypothetical, “IF” we HAD to have one of them involuntarily, which one would be the least burdensome.
 
burbank_jung said:
None of the above.

Most of us are old enough to remember when there was no gun control compared to know and life was better. The difference and solution to me is responsibility. Gun safety was taught to me by my oldest brother. I had the bb gun in my hand and he said, "here are two rules.. "First, "never point a gun at anyone". Second, "listen to what I tell you". Me, "uh,huh". Now, "point the gun at me". I did and he slapped my across the head. "Remember rule 1!" I never forgot it.
Click to expand...


I can’t say that I was taught that way but I don’t have a problem and actually encourage it to where if people are going to carry a handgun around for protection that it should be within their best interest to be taught know how to use it and know what to do when that situation ever comes up when you may need to rely on it. Forcing it, shouldn’t be an option; encouraging it, yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top