Simple Gun Control Law

[louis c]

Register guns like we do cars.

If I want to sell my car to my son for a dollar, I have to register it with the RMV. If he wants to drive it, he needs a license. To get a license, he has to prove he can drive the car safely.

There are no car shows, where people can by unregistered cars. It is naturally not a one to one analogy. In this comparison, an individual could not buy a gun unless licensed to own it. Other than that, it's pretty close.

[former9thward]

1. No one has the Constitutional right to own or buy a car.

But I am guessing you and I have very different views about the Bill of Rights.

[louis c]

8. What do you think the "Well Regulated" part of the second amendment means?

[TeddyR]

13. It means in good working order

Not subject to a bunch of rules. Research it.

[Just reading posts]

14. Exactly right.

[baldguy]

48. It means the militia is in good working order, not the guns.

Which by definition, means they are subject to a bunch of rules.

With 30,000+ unnecessary gun deaths a year, do you really think our militia is in "good working order"?

[guillaumeb]

99. If you had actually researched it you would not have written

this "fact free" answer.

[TeddyR]

102. Enlighten me

[guillaumeb]

113. Only you can come to enlightenment. eom

[deathrind]

101. In order for a "militia"

To be in "good working order". There would be training (lots) that takes place, rules that are followed like RoE's for example processes that are defined for uniformity and regulations to ensure discipline.

...

[oneshooter]

17. It means that your weapon is the same type and caliber of those issued to the active military.

That way the logistics is simplified when supplies are issued.

[louis c]

18. so, the average citizen should be able to own a tank,

a nuclear weapon and a bazooka.

I tend to disagree with that interpretation.

[oneshooter]

20. Those are considered to be crew served weapons.

And if you want a tank, all you need is enough money.

http://www.milweb.net/classifieds.php?type=1

[jmowreader]

23. The guns on tanks have to be made unusable before a civilian can buy one

[sarisataka]

24. Incorrect

the main gun and each round of ammunition must be registered as a destructive device.

So again, all it takes is $$$

[oneshooter]

27. I rebuild, repair and restore WW2 era armored vehicles.

Two of my clients have Stewart Light Tanks with fully operational 37mm main guns. One of these has received a permit to restore a 105mm Main gun on an Israeli Super Sherman that I just recently got running.

Like the man said, all it takes is money.

[Orrex]

49. How about a newly-manufactured minigun?

It's a firearm that's illegal for civilian ownership. How can we tolerate this affront to the sacred Constitution?

[oneshooter]

21. In fact I have one of these in my shop.

Waiting for a engine rebuild kit from Rolls Royce.

[sarisataka]

22. Nuclear weapons are controlled

by international proliferation treaties. I have never heard of regular citizen expressing a desire to buy one.

You can own a tank or bazooka. Microsoft co-founder and gun control supporter Paul Allen bought a Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf. H for $2.5 million a couple years ago. Shortly prior to that he made a $500,000 donation to push Washington's initiative I-594.

I guess if you are rich enough, owning "weapons of war" that were "designed for the battlefield" are ok.

[Reiyuki]

29. Discriminate vs indiscriminate weapons

It's never been officially applied as law, but any weapon that is indiscriminate (IE: unable to be accurately aimed or targeted) should be fine to ban from civilian use.

That rules out almost all explosives (area effect prevents discrimation), all CBR weapons, and most full-auto (since ability to discriminate drops significantly in full-auto).

It's a good 'ceiling law' for upper limit of 2ndAm rights.

[FBaggins]

58. How do you propose banning explosives?

They're far too easy to make.

[Reiyuki]

69. Well, you basically can't,

But I'm referring to more of the publicly available varieties (grenade, RPG, etc) as it often comes up in 2ndAm conversations.

In reality, the discussion is basically deadlocked with hardliners on both sides that refuse to talk to each other. I was talking more about upper limits, and if it were ever going to take effect, it would need some concise lower limits as well. For example: any firearm considered standard issue for law enforcement be guaranteed to citizens as well.

[Amishman]

40. it was the original intent

whether that purpose is reasonable today is a different story

[scscholar]

31. But 22 caliber is much too high power for a citzen to won...

as Orlando proved, so how do you explain that?

[oneshooter]

34. ?????

But 22 caliber is much too high power for a citzen to won...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

56. Nothing. It's an explanation, not a qualification.

The meaning of the 2nd amendment would not be changed by removing the first 13 words; all they do is explain why it was passed.

[quaker bill]

103. Actually, the 4th ammendment probably covers it

[edhopper]

2. Some think

there can be zero, nill, nada, none whatsoever impairment in the right to own as many guns as you would want.

The "Well regulated militia" part not withstanding.

[Press Virginia]

4. By law anyone 18-45 is part of the militia

[edhopper]

5. That is heavily debated

as you no doubt know.

[Press Virginia]

35. It's the law. It's been on the books for 60 years

[edhopper]

36. so you have no problem restricting

ownership for men over 45 and women.

[Press Virginia]

41. No. I'm just citing the law as it pertains

to who is in the militia

[edhopper]

43. And there is a debate

if all men 18 to 45 have an unrestricted right to any and as many guns as they want.
The "Well regulated" being a key phrase.
The law is not as cut and dry as you maintain.

[Press Virginia]

44. The only debate is among those who ignore what the founders said regarding the militia

and armed citizenry

[edhopper]

46. Again

your interpretation, and debatable. What did the founders say exactly about background checks and automatic weapons?

[Press Virginia]

50. The same thing they said about telephones and computers

"Arms" not muskets or front loading rifles.
The British were already using breech loading rifles in the war so the founders were aware that weapon technology was capable of advancement.

[edhopper]

51. So you think the founders believed in

unrestricted access for any male, age 18-45 to any weapon.

But you are fine with restrictions for women and men over 45?

And "well regulated" has no bearing on anything.

[Press Virginia]

52. The militia was the "whole of the people"

they did not exist as a standing organization, to be regularly drilled and trained. They existed as an organized body when called upon.
The Federal Law merely codifies who and what the militia is.

[edhopper]

54. And yet

the Supreme Court has allowed complete restrictions on gun ownership.

Even for males 18 to 45.

They seem to think "well regulated" means regulated.

[Press Virginia]

64. Uhhh no

[edhopper]

73. Males ages 18-45

are not allowed to own guns in New York city, unless they have a thoroughly vetted permit. This law has been deemed constitutional.

So, uhhh, yes.

[Press Virginia]

75. False.

To CARRY a gun one, yes. To own one, no.

[edhopper]

76. You need

a license for a handgun in NYC, even if it is just in your home.

[Press Virginia]

98. See Heller

You must have a license for a CCW, that's been upheld.
But private ownership no longer requires a license or permit

[edhopper]

100. Not according to

the NYPD and the City of New York. Permits required for any gun.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/firearms_licensing/handgun_licensing_information.shtml

[Press Virginia]

3. He only needs a license and registration to drive on publics roads

and doesn't need a background check to make the purchase

[hack89]

6. Don't need to register a car to own or keep on private property

Only to use on public roads.

I am fine with treating guns like that. No registration to have at home. Special license with registration to carry a loaded gun in public - we can call it a concealed carry permit.

[louis c]

9. I made that distimction in my analogy

[hack89]

10. You can buy unregistered cars

Last edited Sat Jul 2, 2016, 09:03 PM - Edit history (1)

You can sell unregistereducars. All you need is a bill of sale. It is up to the buyer to register the car if they want to drive on public roads.

[Recursion]

26. Most states excise cars, though, so it would need a title (nt)

[hack89]

30. Hence the bill of sale. nt

[linuxman]

7. Soooo....

Full 50 state carry and use reciprocity?

Unrestricted silencers? It's just a muffler for a gun

I can get my carry permit at 16?

Able to buy ammo (gas) without background check, ID, or any other nonsense?

I can buy any type and use it on my own property without any restrictions?

I can choose any type? high performance (automatic), heavy duty (80mm recoiless)?


Not altogether terrible...

[Straw Man]

11. Exactly.

Remember having that criminal background check to buy your car? Neither do I ...

[sarisataka]

12. To continue the analogy

You can even buy the gun without a background check

The penalty for reckless use of your gun in public will be a citation and a minor fine. If you get drunk and accidentally kill someone with it you might do a little jail time but after getting out Simply take a class and you will be able to get your gun license back

[LongtimeAZDem]

45. And any damage done while using the weapon in violation of the law will be called an "accident" (nt)

[Just reading posts]

15. Works for me.

[Heeeeers Johnny]

53. I can cross statelines and legally purchase any firearm I want...

and take it back home without having the sale go through an FFL.

I can buy a firearm online from anywhere in the country and have have it delivered right to my door.

If I have no prohibiting factors, my police chief can not deny me a license.

I can carry any firearm I want in plain view.

[ansible]

16. Several years ago my car was seized by the police because the registration was expired

I was going through a rough time in my life and didn't have enough money to pay the registration(it's around $200 plus has to get smogged in CA). They literally towed it away in front of my parent's house and when I got angry the cop threatened to have me arrested if I tried to interfere.

If the government can do this with cars perfectly legally, then just imagine how much worse it'd be if guns were subject to the same kind of laws.

[Igel]

19. Keep it off the roads.

California is weird. But to keep it from being towed, assuming that the title is in order, don't park it on public property.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr01

California law requires vehicles to be currently registered if they are driven, towed, stored, or parked on public roads or highways at any time during the registration period.
If the registered owner decides to register the vehicle, full registration renewal fees are due. If the registered owner has moved and did not notify the department, he/she may not receive a vehicle registration renewal notice. It is the registered owner's responsibility to pay the registration renewal fees on time.

Owning the car is legal. Just keep it in the driveway. (I kept a car for a couple of years in the garage. My HOA insists on having cars registered, because otherwise the concern is that junked cars will pile up in the streets.)

The weird thing about California is their attempt to get all the cars on the road registered. Lots o' money in that, and government is often all about maximizing revenues. It means that if you don't register you car you have to report it as non-operational ("non-op&quot , and then it's assumed for that year it's not registered and will not be driven, towed, stored, or parked on public roads or highways. It's an infrastructure thing--they say it's for out-of-state drivers but I rather suspect that people moving in from Oregon isn't the issue.

If you don't declare it non-op and you go to register the thing, they hit you with back fees and penalties because the assumption is that if you didn't declare it non-op you've been using the thing on public infrastructure. They don't get you for driving an unregistered car, they just hit you with back fees for getting the thing legal.

[Recursion]

25. It doesn't need to be registered to be sold. It needs to be titled

Those are very different things.

[yallerdawg]

28. Eleven Things Congress Could Do On Guns

More simple, common sense.

Source: Third Way, Sarah Trumble

1. Expand background checks.

2. Close the domestic violence loophole.

3. Prohibit people who have committed hate crimes from buying guns.

4. Prohibit people on the terror watch list from buying guns.

5. Fund and support the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

6. End the research ban on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

7. Get weapons of war off our streets.

8. Incentivize states to submit more mental health records into the background check system.

9. End the requirement that all ATF gun traces be performed on paper.

10. Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment.

11. Pass a gun trafficking bill.

http://www.thirdway.org/

[TeddyR]

55. There are no weapons of war on American streets

[Lizzie Poppet]

60. Ironically...

...my bolt-action Surgeon "Remedy" in .338 Lapua Mag is more of a legitimate "weapon of war" than any civilian paramilitary semiautomatic out there. These are actually used by military snipers (mine's for long-range target competition...).

[TeddyR]

63. I stand corrected

You are of course right. And frankly some of the handguns you can purchase are probably utilized by military forces. Beretta, FN and H&K I believe provide various military side arms.

[yallerdawg]

65. No weapons of war on our streets?

This "all or nothing" stand by "gun enthusiasts" is truly disturbing.

Similar ideological purity drives terrorists.

There is no reason that weapons of war designed to create mass causalities — like dangerous assault weapons and high-capacity magazines — should be easily available. The latter is especially important, given we know that when a mass shooter stops to reload is when people escape (like at Sandy Hook) or he gets tackled (like Gabby Giffords’ attacker).

[TeddyR]

66. What "weapon of war" has been used in the US in a terrorist attack or mass shooting?

Magazine capacity is a different issue. I'm not aware of any rifle that was used in a US mass shooting that is also a military weapon.

[yallerdawg]

67. "Designed to create mass casualties."

Playing your obtuse obstructionist word games is now just plain irritating.

How you all repeatedly get away with rightwing NRA talking points is beyond me.

[TeddyR]

97. What right wing NRA talking point did I use

? That's a serious accusation here on DU, so back it up with facts.

[Duckhunter935]

105. They won't

Typical

[yallerdawg]

108. Limitless NRA talking points! (Happy Fourth of July!)

Just one, teeny-tiny galling example:

Special Forces Association Takes On Giffords' New Gun-Control Group

NRA - America's First Freedom (skip the 1st Amendment, I guess - have to prioritize, right?)

Retired General Stanley McChrystal is one of the people who joined Giffords' Advisory Committee. McChrystal, in fact, said on MSNBC: “I spent a career carrying typically either an M16 or an M4 Carbine. An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 mm at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed for that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.”

In truth, the .223 Remington has long been used for hunting and sport shooting. It is actually a much lighter cartridge than most of those used by big-game hunters. McChrystal surely understands the needs of the U.S. military, but it is clear he needs to get out in America more. Is he even aware that the AR-15 was made available by Colt to American citizens in the same year (1963) that the military adopted the full-auto version (the M16)? Or that rifles are used in less than 3 percent of homicides annually in the U.S.?

The anti-gun narrative that the AR-15 shoots a particularly deadly cartridge and bullet combination is also nonsense. From its inception, many resisted and still criticize the .223 for being a comparably light “varmint” round.

NRA talking points: Discredit General McChrystal's competency, describe "AR-15" as a hunting/sports rifle, point out how few are "killed" with a rifle (mass shootings of children and gays just happen to fall in that category), these guns are not "assault weapons" - they are for shooting "varmints."

Yes - endless rightwing NRA talking points.

As opposed to progressive Democratic talking points to save innocent lives!

[Just reading posts]

62. In my experience when someone says they want guns "off the street" they mean "not in civilian hands"

[yallerdawg]

68. 2016 Democratic Party Platform Draft

Gun Violence Prevention

With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. We will expand background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws, hold irresponsible dealers and manufacturers accountable, keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons—off our streets, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues.

https://demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2016-DEMOCRATIC-PARTY-PLATFORM-DRAFT-7.1.16.pdf

[Just reading posts]

70. Where it says "keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons—off our streets" do you think it's

speaking of open carry?

If not, then exactly what does it mean?

[yallerdawg]

71. You had it right.

"Not in civilian hands."

We don't need assault weapons for "home defense."

If these "toys" are continued to be sold, they should be well-regulated - maybe stored and used exclusively at "gun clubs." Where else would they be used?

[Just reading posts]

72. Saying "off the streets" is weasel-wording. If you want to ban or confiscate them, just say so.

And in fairness, you just did.

If these "toys" are continued to be sold, they should be well-regulated - maybe stored and used exclusively at "gun clubs." Where else would they be used?

Hunting. The AR platform is one of the most popular hunting rifles in America. And no, it won't "blow away" the target. With a 5 round magazine inserted, it functions identically to any more traditionally styled semiautomatic hunting rifle.

Target shooting. Not everyone belongs to a "gun club". Shooters have taken their guns out into the country for informal target shooting for centuries.

Home defense. An AR-15 (and rifles like) makes an excellent home defense weapon, protestations of those that want to ban them aside.

A single AR-15 can be configured for any of the above activities. There's never been a more versatile firearms platform in history.

Here's an article that goes into more depth:

Why millions of Americans — including me — own the AR-15

[Duckhunter935]

81. That poster will not bother to read that

[Just reading posts]

82. One does what one can.

[Duckhunter935]

83. I know

[Duckhunter935]

79. Good thing my AR is not a weapon of war

Semi-automatic designed for the civilian market. No military that I am aware of equips their military with semi-automatic AR-15 rifles. Now I worry about my bolt action rifles as they are actual war weapons.

[Just reading posts]

84. They use the phrase "weapon of war" as if that, in and of itself, means something should be

prohibited from civilian ownership.

A bayonet is a weapon of war. Is anyone (UK aside) arguing that they should be illegal?

I can at least understand proposed gun control legislation that's based on functionality. I may (and do) disagree with its core assumptions, but at least it has a certain logic to it. But saying that something should be "off the streets" because a soldier uses it?

That's just dumb. Especially when the item in question isn't even used by any military on earth.

[Duckhunter935]

85. And they refuse to accept simple facts

Most of the time, that's when the insults from them start.

[Just reading posts]

87. I've noticed that. Correcting an obvious mistake or even asking for a clarification is dismissed

as "gunsplaining"



Most of the time, that's when the insults from them start.

Says a lot more about them than us, I would dare say.

[Skittles]

32. with 1 million in insurance

yes indeed

[sarisataka]

33. $2 million liability

And professional coverage as an instructor, costs $25 per month. I could get it for less if I renewed my NRA membership...
Nyah I'll pay the extra monthly premium

[Abq_Sarah]

37. Would you be opposed

To filling out a 6 page form, successfully passing a background check and having the accessories on your car limited before you're allowed to buy it?

[ileus]

38. All cars are unregistered when you buy them...

[aikoaiko]

39. Awesome idea -- then I can have as many unregistered machine guns as I want on my property

I can have any number of unregistered cars on my private property or with the permission of owners of other private property.

I don't need licenses to drive cars on private property either.

Awesome!!! You just ended all gun laws on private property if we followed through on this analogy.

[doc03]

42. I understand a person can own a fully automatic weopon or tank ect. if you get a special permit. Why

not require a person to get the same permit for rifles and pistols with large capacity detachable magazines. Why not just
eliminate guns with detachable magazines period?

[Just reading posts]

59. At least 50% of firearms (probably more) have detachable magazines. The wisdom (or not) of banning

them aside, you're never going to be able to confiscate half the guns in America.

[doc03]

74. Not talking about confiscation, future sales and maybe buy-backs like I heard they

did in Australia. If we had a background check on all gun sales you wouldn't need to confiscate them at least we would know
who was buying the existing ones from this point on. If it saves 1 life it would be worth the inconvenience to gun owners.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

77. "buy-backs" that aren't optional are confiscation

Registration is just another non-stater of a shit idea.

[doc03]

88. Did I say buy-backs were mandatory? n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

89. You said like Australia n/t

[doc03]

92. The report I heard on Australia never said it was mandatory. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

96. It's cool, no problem

[Just reading posts]

80. The Australian "buy back" was confiscation. Gun owners were told to turn over their guns

or go to jail.

If we had a background check on all gun sales you wouldn't need to confiscate them at least we would know
who was buying the existing ones from this point on

Other than for the millions of sales which would be done without a background check, of course.

If it saves 1 life it would be worth the inconvenience to gun owners.

The answer to, "If it saves only one life, isn't it worth it?" is frequently, "No, it's not."

[doc03]

90. What sales without background checks? Require them on all sales,

if you get caught selling a gun without one confiscate their f---g guns and send them to jail. A person can't wait 5 minutes for the
check? That isn't worth saving a life?

[Just reading posts]

94. The millions of them that will be done by the simple expedience of ignoring the law.

Bob: "Ok, it's a deal. I'll buy that Remington shotgun from you for $200."

John: "Cool. Waitaminute, though...I can't just hand it to you. We'll have to go to the gun store and have the sale approved, adding $50 to the cost of the transaction. Even though I know you already have a dozen guns, I'd feel better knowing that the government approves."

Bob: "Uh....really?"

John: "Of course not. You never could tell when I was joking."

[Duckhunter935]

86. Australia was defacto confiscation

There was no choice.

[doc03]

91. I didn't realize that. I have heard they worked well in Australia but the report didn't

say it was mandatory. Are you sure or is that NRA propaganda?

[Just reading posts]

95. I can assure you, the Australian government was mandatory.

Are you sure or is that NRA propaganda?

Does the NRA control Wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#Australia

Australia had buyback programs in 1996 and 2003. Both programs were compulsory, and involved compensation paid to owners of firearms made illegal by gun law changes and surrendered to the government. Bought back firearms were destroyed.

[Duckhunter935]

104. And crickets for a response

[Just reading posts]

107. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

[doc03]

109. Well what is your solution to stop a nut from buying a

gun and killing 50 6 year old kids? About the Australian thing I wasn't suggesting mandatory gun buy-backs. I was trying to suggest some kind of sensible gun control that any sane person could agree with. Now personally I own 10 guns, I have hunted all my life and target shoot. It wouldn't bother me if they required a background check to own a gun and for any gun sale. I also believe that magazine capacity should be limited on all guns. I also wouldn't give a damn if they bought back every semi-auto gun me or anyone else has. I think because of the NRA's refusal to compromise on anything it will come back and bite them in the ass and gun laws will be far more strict than what I suggest.

[Duckhunter935]

110. Well, let's see

I will post this for about the thousandths time

UBC or open NICS to private sales, magazine limits to 20 rounds. No cosmetic bans. Better mental health. Fully fund law enforcement and enforce current laws. Ensure states include good data in the NICS. Long jail time for any crime using a firearm. Stronger straw purchase legislation. I have no big issues with a listening program by type of weapon. Heavily discounted gun safes. Free Gun locks. Mandatory gun safety training in schools. Age appropriate for younger ages, like do not touch, get an adult.

Just a few

[doc03]

111. Well WTF did you start arguing about whether the Australian law was

a mandatory buy-back or not? I heard a report on a TV show (MSNBC?) where they talked about Australian buy-backs were so successful in getting guns out of circulation and they made no mention it was mandatory. I guess they would be pretty successful if you had to do it. I can't see anything I would disagree with other than why limit at 20 rounds, 10 wouldn't be enough? I have a question what are these laws I always hear about that are not enforced? No I haven't seen that one time let alone a thousand times.

[Duckhunter935]

112. See post 95, it was a compulsory buyback

It did get a lot of rifles but not nearly all and now they even developed a pump action AR to comply with the law that is nearly as fast as s semi-automatic. Why 20? It is a reasonable compromise as it was the original standard size magazines for the AR platform and most handguns use between 10 and 20 rounds. There are billions of those magazines in circulation and you will not confiscated them or make them illegal. It is a compromise

[doc03]

93. Well if you have all the answers what would you do to help

prevent someone from murdering 50 6 year olds? What give them guns?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

78. Why not demand a permit for demanding permits?

[edhopper]

47. A sane country

would amend the Second Amendment. I know this will never happen.

[LongtimeAZDem]

57. If you don't like guns, don't buy one (nt)

[Just reading posts]

61. Choice is a good thing (nt)

[Hoyt]

106. People who don't like gunz, don't like a toting yahoo standing next to them and

their kids at Chuck E Cheez. The issue of guns is not as simple as gunners try to make it. Their gun purchases, support of NRA and/or other gun organizations, etc., impact everyone negatively.