Only 4 Gun Laws Needed - IMHO

Status
Not open for further replies.
The fact that these two crimes both could fall into the same broad bucket of "felony" is the problem.
Click to expand...
Like saying stealing gum and raping an 8 year old both being a crime is ridiculous. They are both felonies and both deserve to be. THe difference is the guy who rapes the 8 year old girl should be in jail for quite a bit longer and he is going to meet more, uhhh friends, while he is in.
 
No.

1. Not too much of a problem, but I'd be VERY wary of exactly what makes someone a prohibited person...

2. How am I to be held responsible if someone buys a firearm from me, sells it 5 years later to person B, B sells it 2 years later to person C, who sells it 4 years later to D (who has a professionally forged fake ID from a terrorist org/foreign gov), then "D" assassinates the President. You want to hold me accountable for that?! Would you charge John Moses Browning in that case too, perhaps the ammunition manufacturer, the firerarm manufacturer, the original FFL, my spouse, child, and dog...after all, they should've known/stopped this terrible crime!

3. Rights should apply to everyone in the jurisdiction.

4.This helps how? Are the police going to go house to house searching for it? (Violating numerous civil rights) Or is this so they can prosecute me in 35 years, after the gun has changed hands 24 times, and was used in a crime...?
 
2. You would have a record of having sold it to an eligible person. The next people down the line would have to have the same as you. The person who had the first non legal sale would be liable. I made that one kind of unclear. I meant to say that each person down the line would be responsible for the legal sale. My mistake. You would have to be responsible only for the first sale of the gun.

3. I disagree on this. Why should non-citizens enjoy the same rights when it comes to firearms as citizens do? Just because you immigrated here legally should not be free license to own a gun. What the heck is so difficult about becoming a US citizen. If you want to remain a citizen of Timbuktu you should live there.

4. No, you just need to report/prove it was stolen so that you are not liable. Keeping a gun in a safe, to me, is not practical. But......if one of my guns is stolen and I never report it, there should be consequences for not taking responsibility for the weapon.
 
2. Is there anybody that you trust to never, ever misuse or allow to be misused a gun sufficient that you are willing to spend time alongside them in jail? If so, then, well, I don't know what to say except that's a pretty naive position. If not, then it would be more honest to simply put #2 as a complete ban on private sales.

3. As mentioned uptopic, which other rights do you want to deny to someone who is here legally (we're not even talking about illegal aliens here)? Hey, the 13th forbids slavery. Should they be denied that protection as well? Why is the life of a person visiting our country--short or long term--less worthy of being protected than that of a citizen.

Why would you rather my wife be dead in an ally with her pantyhose wrapped around her neck than alive with a gun in her hand?

4. How about making the people who actually commit the crimes responsible? A person whose gun is stolen is the victim. Stop blaming victims for the crimes of others.
 
chucksolo69 said:
1. A background check is necessary by FFL dealers to make sure you are not a criminal or mental defective or drug/alcohol ABUSER. Excludes nicotine use or people using prescription drugs in the legally prescribed manner.
Click to expand...

No... The NICS check is to ensure the FFL is not selling to a prohibited person. It is not about You. To make the law about YOU, would require penalties to be imposed upon the prohibited person for attempting to purchase a firearm from an FFL.

But you didn't say a NICS check, you said a background check which, which entails a more thorough (and costly) check. Who's to pay for this? The buyer?

A case can be made that such a scheme would cross over the prior restraint bar. Add to this, that in todays jurisprudence, another case can be made that paying for such a check would amount to taxing a fundamental right.

The current NICS check is constitutional. Extending it may or may not be. Changing it to an full background check would place an undue burden upon the right.

2. If you sell your legally obtained gun to a person with a criminal record or mental health record in a face to face transfer or straw sale, and the gun is used in a crime, you will be equally liable. This would apply even if the gun changes hands many times. You were the original owner after all. It would be up to you to verify that the person could legally own a gun. Forms for legal transfer among private citizens could be obtained at gun stores. It would be up to you to keep the record of sale and identity verification of the person you sold the gun to. Having been presented false identity documents would be no excuse for sale to anyone not eligible to own a gun.
Click to expand...

You would extend "straw purchases" to ordinary citizens? It's bad enough that some FFL's are not well versed on what constitutes a "straw purchase," but you would complicate that by extending it to everyone? Under what justification? I'm not aware that there is a problem with ordinary folks knowingly sell to others, who are purchasing for a third party. Another "solution" in search of a problem, if you ask me.

You wish to also extend legal liability to the original owner, or the original purchaser? I'll assume you mean the original retail purchaser. So I'll need some kind of form 4473 to complete this purchase, and I'll keep it for 20 years or until I die, at which point it gets sent to the BATF (similar to what an FFL does)? Is that you scheme? Or do I just submit the paperwork as soon as the transaction is complete?

Hmmm, now you burden me with more required paperwork and/or reporting requirements. You are extending personal liability, regardless of how many times a firearm I sell is sold to others. You are forcing me to scrutinize my fellow man, more than I would my daughters first date!

3. You must be a citizen of the USA and prove it to obtain a gun, any gun. This would also apply to face to face or straw sales of guns. Again, it would be up to the seller to acertain [sic] if the buyer is a citizen of the US. Having been presented false identity documents would be no excuse for sale to anyone not eligible to own a gun.
Click to expand...

Since we are talking of a right here, you can not lawfully require this, unless you repeal portions of the 14th amendment. (Hint: This is where anyone under the jurisdiction of the US Government has the same rights as you or I. Reading and understanding the Constitution of the United States is a requirement to fully participate in these debates.)

... And ... You now want to make every ordinary citizen liable for being duped by forged and/or false documents.

4. If your gun is stolen, you would have to report it within 24 hours to the authorities or it would be the same as law #2. After all, gun security is every gun owner's responsibility.
Click to expand...

As others have noted, is this time period when the gun is actually stolen or when you discover it? Who gets to define how secure your Firearms must be? The benevolent government or me?

I'm thinking you would have a better chance at just banning the damn guns than getting people to agree to these onerous requirements. Overall, the effects would be similar, as they would have a chilling effect on the exercise of your right to keep and bear arms... But then, that's the whole point of all the various gun control schemes anyways, isn't it?
 
I am stunned that no one has said this yet

Only one gun law is needed and it should read as follows:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
 
It is no one elses responsibility to second guess the nature of intentions anyone else.
Unless you have a valid reason NOT to sell ANY gun to a person, that should cover it right there.
You are not your brothers keeper . . . its an old concept.
Crime happens, and crazy people will always exist.
It is not up to me OR YOU to be held responsible for what someone else does.
There should BE no gun laws, other than age requirements.
Just my thoughts.
 
Would I be correct in assuming that you want to take a "moderate, common sense" approach to freedom of speech, religion, press, and the freedom from unlawful search and seisure?

I mean, honestly, wouldn't it make life a little easier for all of us if we regluated these things too? No more insults, controversal books, strange religions. And police could be more effecient if they didnt need warrants.

When you compromise a given right, you start to loose that right. The 2nd amendment right has been eroded by decades of anti gun legislation. "4 laws" like yours would only drive the final few nails in the coffin.

We dont need to "police ourselves to keep the goverment off our back". We just need to keep the goverment off our back. It takes as much effort to write up compromising gun laws as it does to write your congresscritters in washington and tell them you want your rights back.
 
Last edited:
#3

Have you read anything other than the 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution:confused:

Read Section #1 of the 14th...

Also there are already laws on the book pertaining to NON-immigrant Aliens...

:barf:
 
As the originator of this thread I am glad it got such a great response. I noticed that the responders to the thread were spread out pretty much all over the country; excellent. Now let me tell you why I posted this thread. As you have almost certainly acertained, I live in the great state of California. But.....much as I love my native state, we who live here are currently in a quasi state of siege, not only from our own home grown bands of gansters, but also from drug cartel violence right across the border from us (San Diego) in Mexico. About a year ago in my home town, a police officer, and friend, was gunned down during a traffic stop while assisting a fellow officer. The perpetrators, gang members, killed this public servant for no reason other than "Kicks." These people used a .22 caliber rifle mounted with a scope and killed the officer from about 100 yards away. The bullet missed his ballistic vest and found its way into his armpit. Dan died before the ambulance could get to him. He left behind a wife and infant son. Now, no one knows how these people got the guns, but, that is really irrelevant because dead is dead. So, let me pose this question to all of you who advocate no form of regulation on weapons. How, if there is no way to regulate, do we keep weapons out of the hands of lawless people? I am a card carrying member of the NRA and always, always defend peoples right to own and carry weapons. Here in California, law abiding citizens are penalized constantly when trying to buy guns. We can only purchase one handgun a month, must have a card certifying that we have passed a test and wait 10 days to pick up the gun. Still after all that, weapons still find their way into the hands of lawless idiots like the ones that killed the fine officer I wrote about. Don't you think that with absolutely no regulation whatsoever, law abiding people would be left to staying behind closed doors in order to be safe? What would you do?
 
Sorry to hear of the loss of your friend.

Restricting the rights of the law abiding citizens will not have any effect on the activities of the lawless, in fact, it could make the law abiding easier targets for more bold acts by the lawless.
 
To answer your last question - how to keep guns from lawless people - you can't. They are by definition, lawless. Laws won't regulate their behavior. How do we stop the flow of drugs? We can't. Illegal visitors? We can't. Gray market goods, other contraband? We can't. Many of these are as hard or harder to conceal and transport than guns and ammo. The market will deliver whatever people want, whether it's on the up or under the table. The best you can do is hope that society is prepared to deal with the byproducts of those uncontrollable incidences. Goes back to a quote often attributed to Jefferson: "The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent." You cannot regulate those that do not submit to regulation.

All gun laws are inherently preposterous. It's illegal to kill, batter and assault without strong justification. It is always illegal to steal or vandalize. Why do we need to clutter, complicate and inconvenience most people's lives because we lack the spine to enforce the existing laws?

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Gun laws are the ultimate in beauracratic redundancy. Paraphrasing, they say "Hey, let's make it illegal to do something that's already illegal." That'll teach those crooks, they are now exponentially criminal! Certainly, life plus six months is a greater disincentive to violate than just life!

Europe's gun-free zones still have huge violence problems. A desire for gun-control, while scoring "feel-good" points that seem to run the country today, shows a complete lack of understanding on the issues. Very rudimentary logic would suggest that it is unlikely that any benefit will be realized. Prevention in violence is better served by the deterrent of an equal or better equipped nonviolent civilian populus, or perhaps going the other direction and forfeiting a great deal of the liberties that allow people the freedom of motion to contemplate lawbreaking in the first place. The latter is no possibility in the US, but there are plenty of places elsewhere that would respect that desire.
 
Stupid post. Actually asking for gun laws. You ask for 4, be prepared to get a little more than 4. In what world does that make any sense for the victim of a robbery to be held accountable for his/her stolen property? What if you fo some reason didn't know your property was stolen (out of town for a few weeks and house broken into)? Guess under your flawed logic and reasoning, that person has to go to jail for not being home. No thanks, I'll pass on your 4 laws if I can.

Edit: Bolded comment insults the OP and normally would be deleted and a warning given. - Antipitas
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Purchasing, owning, possessing a firearm is a birthright for citizens here.
Click to expand...

Says who? The Constitution doesn't say that. It says "the right of the people," not "the right of Citizens."

And, as I have mentioned uptopic, which other rights are you willing to restrict to non-citizens who are legally visiting the United States (short or long term)? Does the fifth go away? How about the 4th? The 1st? The eighth? The 3rd? Which?
 
Hillbilly Shooter, "Stupid Post" is a matter of opinion. Let's keep from being insulting and give pertinent opinions. Also you might want to read the entire thread before posting.

Edit: This entire post is a response to a perceived insult, and it therefore itself subject to being deleted. - Antipitas
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Burkhead, anyone living close to any International Border is going to disagree with you. While I praise people who come here and live and work legally, pay taxes and embrace our society, I still think that ONLY citizens should have the right to own a firearm. When you have a flood of people coming across the borders, I think it would be prudent to prove citizenship before you can buy a gun. What is so heinous about that? Think about it, we are one of the very, very few countries in the world that don't patrol their borders with troops. We can't let all those illegals have guns. Green cards are too easy to fake to make that a reliable check for legal status.
 
chucksolo69 said:
Let's keep from being insulting and give pertinent opinions.
Click to expand...
Something to which, if reported (this button -->
report.gif
) us mods would deal with, instead of having to also deal with your post (or anyone else's), because you responded to it.

Yet it's also hard to post further "pertinent opinions" on a subject that myself and several others have made, that you refuse to rebut.

All in all, I'm leaving the posts, but marked up to illustrate what was wrong.

Note to members: Let's keep the insults out of discussions and if you find something like that, report it, don't respond to it. It may take a little time to get to it, but we do get to it.
 
No, I am not refusing to rebut. What I am basically doing is watching the thread to see what the responses are. So far, based upon geographical location, the responses have been universally hostile. It's interesting to note that responses that say the only law needed is the second amendment come from relatively low urban crime areas; or so it seems. You know, basically I also agree that gun control laws do nothing especially since trying to control an inanimate object is ridiculous. I posted this thread basically because here in California, there is absolutely no way that we are going to reform our highly restrictive gun control laws without some kind of major compromise. The issues we have with gang violence and the violence in the inner cities in general will keep the Liberals who control our state government from accepting any type of logical reform. I and most pro gun Californians would love to get suggestions we could use.
 
Burkhead, anyone living close to any International Border is going to disagree with you. While I praise people who come here and live and work legally, pay taxes and embrace our society, I still think that ONLY citizens should have the right to own a firearm. When you have a flood of people coming across the borders, I think it would be prudent to prove citizenship before you can buy a gun. What is so heinous about that? Think about it, we are one of the very, very few countries in the world that don't patrol their borders with troops. We can't let all those illegals have guns. Green cards are too easy to fake to make that a reliable check for legal status
Click to expand...

You mean that people who live near an international border are incapable of differentiating between people in the US legally and others?

"We can't let all those illegals have guns." This may come as a shock to you but it's already illegal for non-immigrant aliens (which would, by definition) exclude illegals to purchase guns in the US. All that your citing illegals having guns proves is that that kind of prohibition doesn't work.

And if a green card is too easy to fake, so is "proof" of citizenship. You don't even have to create a new ID, just steal one. And wouldn't it be wonderful to be the person whose ID was stolen to buy a gun then have that gun used in a crime and guess who they come after from your #2?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top