HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Here's what I think shoul...

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 01:52 PM

 

Here's what I think should happen in the realm of gun control.

1. Universal Background Checks, all firearms, handguns and rifles, should go through an FFL dealer background check.

2. Safe storage laws in the home when children are present and meaningful penalties for negligent deaths as a result of non compliance of such laws.

3. Mandatory training for the lawful use of firearms before first purchase.

4. Beef up the BATFE to go after corrupt dealers and citizens.

5. Strict regulations for CCW, IE: rigorous training on the lawful use firearms for self defense and the consequences of using said firearms.

6. National registration with the caveat that the database can never be used for confiscation.

7. Mag limits of 10 for handguns and 30 for long rifles. What's good for the govt. should be good for private citizens.

8. Repeal of all SYG laws, Castle Doctrine laws are sufficient for citizens.

9. I'm always open to reasonable gun control laws.

23 replies, 1726 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply Here's what I think should happen in the realm of gun control. (Original post)
sked14 Feb 2014 OP
clffrdjk Feb 2014 #1
sked14 Feb 2014 #2
clffrdjk Feb 2014 #4
sked14 Feb 2014 #13
clffrdjk Feb 2014 #15
sked14 Feb 2014 #16
spin Feb 2014 #12
sked14 Feb 2014 #14
spin Feb 2014 #21
upaloopa Feb 2014 #3
sked14 Feb 2014 #5
Lurks Often Feb 2014 #6
sked14 Feb 2014 #8
clffrdjk Feb 2014 #9
Lurks Often Feb 2014 #11
NCTraveler Feb 2014 #7
HereSince1628 Feb 2014 #10
wocaonimabi Feb 2014 #17
sked14 Feb 2014 #18
sarisataka Feb 2014 #19
Laelth Feb 2014 #20
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2014 #22
customerserviceguy Feb 2014 #23

Response to sked14 (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 01:56 PM

1. And what are you prepaired to do to get those things?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clffrdjk (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 01:59 PM

2. National reciprocity.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 02:05 PM

4. National reciprocity does not effect me at all

 

2 or 3 permits cover most of the states already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clffrdjk (Reply #4)


Response to sked14 (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:34 PM

15. Then you can understand

 

How it does nothing to make my want to support this proposal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clffrdjk (Reply #15)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:35 PM

16. I understand.

 

I'm just throwing out suggestions hoping to start a discussion without the usual denigration into insults from both sides of the equation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:29 PM

12. Sorry not interested. I prefer to keep reciprocity at the state level as it makes ...

it far more difficult for congress and a president to decide to impose high fees or draconian requirements on those they allow to carry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:34 PM

14. Good point.

 

I'm just throwing out suggestions to start, what I hope, will be a meaningful discussion without the usual rancor and insults from both sides of the equation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 06:55 PM

21. I agree with you on several of your ideas and disagree on others. ...

1) I support universal background checks if the law is set up properly. The law should not apply to the transfer of a firearm between close family members. A grandfather should be able to give his 12 year old grandson a family shotgun without having to run a background check on him. No recording of firearm serial numbers should be required beyond that which occurs when a new firearm is purchased at a licensed dealer. An individual should be able to temporarily transfer his firearms to the care of another person if his house is destroyed by a flood or a tornado. Some provisions would have to be written into the law to deal with emergency situations such as this. Another problem might arise in remote areas of our nation where the nearest licensed dealer is many miles away. Perhaps the local police could do the required background check in such situations.

2) I see no major problem with requiring that firearms are properly stored when children are present in a home. There are plenty of inexpensive ways to safely store a firearm that would insure that a child under the age of puberty would not be able to easily access it. Teenagers present a far more difficult problem. A skillful teenager given time and the proper tools might be able to break into a quality gun safe that costs well over a thousand dollars.

3) I strongly support the completion of a mandatory firearm safety course prior to the purchase of a firearm or ammunition. Scuba and sky divers have to show proof of training prior to filling their tanks with air or boarding a jump plane.

I remember once I invited a nurse who was taking care of my elderly mother to go shooting with me at the range. She arrived and had brought a cheap semi-auto pistol which she had bought for self protection. She showed it to the range master who asked her if it was loaded. She replied that she had no idea how to check it. Obviously she needed to attend a class on firearm safety or at least get some good training. I took the time to provide the instruction and she ended up not only to be safe around firearms but also became an excellent target shooter.

I actually think firearm safety should be a mandatory class in high school along with a good class on first aid. To me it seems only logical when children grow up in a nation that has 80,000,000 gun owners and well over 300,000,000 firearms. Of course gun control advocate strongly disagree as they fear such a class would lead to some students becoming interested in the shooting sports.

4) Obviously we need to "beef up the BATFE" to help curb the illegal sale of firearms by dealers and the straw purchase of firearms to be used by criminals or to be smuggled into our inner city streets for black market sales. Unfortunately the BATFE has a reputation of being the "Keystone Kops" of law enforcement. Providing more funding to an agency with incompetent management will accomplish little. New management or moving the agency under the supervision of a better run agency might help to correct this problem.

5) I see no problem with requiring good training for those who wish to obtain a license to carry. Anyone who wishes to carry in public needs to have a good grasp of firearm safety. He also needs to understand the self defense laws in his state and realize that if he does something foolish with his weapon, he may end up in prison for a long time. I also support requiring a CCW applicant to show an instructor that he can safely handle a handgun and hit a full sized silhouette target at 21 feet without problem. (Realistically most civilian self defense shootings will occur within this distance.)

6) I disagree with any form of national registration of firearms and it matters not what some politicians promise. In my experience most politicians lie and a promise from one is worth the value of a counterfeit twenty dollar bill. Many gun owners would simply refuse to register their firearms The money wasted on such a system would be better spent to combat violent criminals and drug gangs.

7) I favor limiting magazine capacity to the amount held in the standard magazine sold with a firearm. For example the 9mm Glock 17 pistol has a standard magazine that holds 17 rounds. The Glock 21 in .45 ACP has a standard magazine that holds 13 rounds. The AR-15 style rifles come with 20 or 30 round magazines but 5 round magazines are available for hunting deer in many states.

With just a little practice, a magazine can be swapped out in a couple of seconds or less. I have never owned a semi-auto pistol or rifle with a magazine capacity that exceeded ten so I don't feel that only having 10 rounds in a magazine is a major problem. Still the hassle of banning and possibly confiscating magazines that hold more than 10 rounds seems to me to largely be a waste of time.

8) I see a definite value in SYG ground laws. At one time in some states it was necessary to make every attempt to first retreat before using lethal force even in cases that involved a home invasion. This put a homeowner at a significant disadvantage if he choose to follow the law but if he stood his ground he might face charges from an overzealous prosecutor.

I will agree that any SYG law should be well written to avoid misinterpretation. Stand your ground should mean just that! If you are attacked by an individual who intends to put you in a hospital or six feet under and has the weapon or physical superiority to do so, there should be absolutely no reason why you should first have to retreat before attempting to stop the attack.

Of course that assumes that you are in a place you have every right to be and are NOT engaged in any criminal activity. Anyone dealing or buying illegal drugs should be be protected by this law.

Stand your ground should never mean chase down and kill. If when your attacker realizes that you are armed and flees, the threat to your life or health is over. Period!

If you initiate a confrontation and try to provoke your opponent into violence so you can shoot him you should end up in prison. Of course that assumes that there is evidence that you did indeed push your opponent into aggressive actions. Under our system of justice, the prosecution has to prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. While this system has value, there are times when a person may be able to murder another person and walk free if there is any reasonable doubt about his actions. (I personally favor our established system with its inherent weaknesses over trial by the media but it's obvious that many posters here strongly disagree.)

Rarely mentioned is the fact that if there is absolutely no doubt that you used legitimate self defense to stop an attack in many states with SYG laws, you may be able to avoid any criminal prosecution or the expense of a civil action.

Let's assume that you are legally carrying and while walking down the street you are attacked by a large man with a baseball bat. He swings the bat at your head but you duck. You draw your handgun and shoot him and he falls. You then call the police and ask for assistance as you realize that you have seriously injured your attacker. The police arrive and investigate the situation. They find witnesses who verify your story and a video tape of the incident that shows you acted as any responsible man would if he was standing in your shoes.

Why should you have to undergo any prosecution from some prosecuting attorney hoping to make a name for himself as a strong opponent to SYG and concealed carry or have to defend yourself from a civil lawsuit by the person you shot or his family? You did absolutely nothing wrong so why should you end up bankrupt due to the legal expenses?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 02:04 PM

3. I bought a pistol in Bakersfield CA a few years back.

My military training qualified me for the training requirement. I had a background check. I had to wait a few days to pick it up. The gun was registered to me. I had to buy a mandatory gun lock.
So much of those we do in CA.
Something struck me as I was reading the gun violence of the day thread yesterday, many of the shootings were in C A. It is true we cannot legislate our way out of the gun violence culture but we can never know how many more gun deaths there would be if we didn't have these gun laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 02:07 PM

5. I firmly believe that we will never legislate our way out of gun violence,

 

but we can pass laws that will hopefully slow down the rate of gun violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 02:25 PM

6. And when the majority of states refuse to comply?

 

For that matter, there is some question whether the Federal government can require states to comply, EVEN if you can get what you want through Congress.

I'll presume, for the sake of discussion, that the Federal government would use the Commerce Act as legal justification for what you want. This is something that would end up in front of the Supreme Court and I think both the states and the Federal government might be reluctant to have the Supreme Court make a ruling on the Commerce clause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 02:38 PM

8. All my suggestions would have to be done on the federal level

 

to mean anything, and I have no doubt that it would be challenged in the courts, but, I think that these would survive a SCOTUS ruling.
Just my opinion of course, my thread is to hopefully start a thoughful discussion on laws that could possibly slow down the violence while not infringing on the law abiding gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 02:42 PM

9. Today's 9th circuit ruling

 

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf

"The district court erred in denying the applicant’s motion for summary
judgment on the Second Amendment claim because San Diego County’s “good cause” permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.22
REVERSED and REMANDED."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:17 PM

11. I think you are overly optimistic about a SCOTUS ruling

 

and you failed to answer on how you are going to manage to get your ideas through Congress

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 02:29 PM

7. K&R for a thoughtful op with an attempt to foster discussion.

 

Good luck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:16 PM

10. My concerns with your 8 wishes and I'm a non-gun owner...

1. Universal Background Checks

What are you going to check against? The FBI's instant background check is full of holes...background checks can't be any better than the database against which purchases are checked. Although much concern is about the mentally ill who aren't on the list, the worst holes in the database are persons with prison sentences from misdemeanors or felonies with 2-3 year sentences.

2. Safe storage laws...
That's fine, but compliance is the problem with all laws. People feel exceptional about laws for various reasons, but it's not much imagination to see a gun for protection isn't much good if it is unloaded inside a safe in another room of a residence. It might be argued that people who feel they need protection from home invasions are too paranoid to deserve gun ownership, but that argument isn't going to hold up. Even Pres. Obama thinks a weapon for home protection in rural areas is reasonable. A person with such worries is going to balance their anxiety about personal security against the possibility of getting caught...guns are going to be left out. Shit is going to continue to happen.

3. Mandatory training for the lawful use of firearms before first purchase...
Yes, but things change with time...refresher training and updates on backgrounds should be required which suggests that licenses should not only be for purchase but for continued ownership.

4. Beef up the BATFE to go after corrupt dealers and citizens.
It's unclear what this means, especially with respect to citizens...most people caught trying to buy a weapon by NICS is because their names are in the NICS because of a conviction.

5. Strict regulations for CCW....
I have similar concerns to 2 and 3. I don't oppose this, but it's not a leakproof bucket. Weapons are often used during emotionally charged interpersonal conflicts. Such emotional events are unpredictable, as are the responses of persons involved. It's quite possible for a person to pass a test with correct answers but not to follow through during a future interpersonal conflict when a gun is carried.

6. National registration with the caveat that the database can never be used for confiscation.
I suppose you expect the registration to give police/security forces forewarning of possible presence of a weapon. That information cuts in both directions with respect to public safety. Police and security forces get emotional too. People are going to be driving other people's vehicles... a too well emotionally primed police response in routine traffic stops is going to get people shot.

7. Mag limits of 10 for handguns and 30 for long rifles...
This isn't an operational statement. Long guns not in use should be transported unloaded. The capacity of the magazine should reflect the way it is being used. Hunters don't need and in most states can't be loaded with 30 rounds. Target shooting on a licensed and permitted range might involve more magazine capacity

8. Repeal of all SYG laws...
I think you mean the right to self-defense laws and defense of home, not just castle doctrine

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:50 PM

17. Here is what will REALLY Happen

 

Within my life time…..

Enough voters, lawmakers and judges will have ENOUGH of so called "responsible" gun owners and they will write laws and take away your precious.

If the so called "responsible" gun owners do not develop a REAL solution to the gun problem WE the sane will do it and the "Responsible" gun owners will not like it as their precious get melted down into something useful that does not kill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wocaonimabi (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:54 PM

18. When you start with saying "your precious"

 

that tells me you have no desire to have a meaningful discussion.
Have a good day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wocaonimabi (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:54 PM

19. I have been told

No one serious is talking about confiscation


Or some ccombination of though words. .,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 04:43 PM

20. I think we should drop the issue.

While I understand the merits of your argument, this is a big-time losing issue for Democrats. We're already perceived as the party that's hostile to men, and I have no desire to exacerbate the situation by threatening to separate the boys from their toys. Besides which, the 2nd Amendment is the law of the land, and the personal right to carry a firearm has been affirmed and strengthened by the Supreme Court, so ... I think we're hurting ourselves badly by pushing gun control in this political climate.

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 07:17 PM

22. There is only one effective option on this issue, total disarmament and start

 

with police departments. Special response units can remain armed for combat, but the every day cops should not walk around displaying lethal weapons in the communities they are supposed to serve..

Whatever scheme short of this is, at best, pointless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 08:00 PM

23. While I could argue with all of your points

Suffice it to say that #6 is impossible. When government has information, government uses information. Always.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread