HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Here's what I think shoul...

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 01:50 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 is sufficient for citizens.

50 replies, 6985 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 50 replies Author Time Post
Reply Here's what I think should happen in the realm of gun control. (Original post)
sked14 Feb 2014 OP
flamin lib Feb 2014 #1
sked14 Feb 2014 #2
flamin lib Feb 2014 #4
sked14 Feb 2014 #6
shedevil69taz Feb 2014 #12
bossy22 Feb 2014 #3
sked14 Feb 2014 #5
flamin lib Feb 2014 #10
NYC_SKP Feb 2014 #7
sked14 Feb 2014 #8
clffrdjk Feb 2014 #9
flamin lib Feb 2014 #11
shedevil69taz Feb 2014 #13
clffrdjk Feb 2014 #14
flamin lib Feb 2014 #22
clffrdjk Feb 2014 #23
sarisataka Feb 2014 #17
SQUEE Feb 2014 #32
sarisataka Feb 2014 #15
sked14 Feb 2014 #16
sarisataka Feb 2014 #20
Eleanors38 Feb 2014 #33
sked14 Feb 2014 #35
Eleanors38 Feb 2014 #40
sked14 Feb 2014 #41
Eleanors38 Feb 2014 #42
SQUEE Feb 2014 #44
CreekDog Feb 2014 #46
sarisataka Feb 2014 #47
Straw Man Feb 2014 #48
petronius Feb 2014 #18
sked14 Feb 2014 #36
gejohnston Feb 2014 #39
gejohnston Feb 2014 #19
MO_Moderate Feb 2014 #21
flamin lib Feb 2014 #25
MO_Moderate Feb 2014 #38
flamin lib Feb 2014 #43
Laelth Feb 2014 #24
Eleanors38 Feb 2014 #30
Packerowner740 Feb 2014 #26
proudretiredvet Feb 2014 #27
Straw Man Feb 2014 #28
Eleanors38 Feb 2014 #29
Bazinga Feb 2014 #31
Eleanors38 Feb 2014 #34
sked14 Feb 2014 #37
Lizzie Poppet Feb 2014 #45
clffrdjk Feb 2014 #49
NYC_SKP Feb 2014 #50

Response to sked14 (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 02:30 PM

1. Lots of action over in the other gun forum, not so much here.

What's up with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 02:33 PM

2. I don't know.

 

I was sure I would get meaningful suggestions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 02:42 PM

4. Yeah, who is better equipped to propose real, meaninful and workable gun violence

Legislation than responsible gun owners? Who knows more about guns and responsibility than the NRA and Gun Owners of America?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 02:51 PM

6. NRA and GOA should have no place at the table,

 

they've more than made it clear that they have no interest in helping craft reasonable and sensible gun control laws that will help the nation reduce gun violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:18 PM

12. Sadly if that is your stance you will NEVER get any of your wishes made into new laws n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 02:41 PM

3. some issues

1. Universal Background Checks- in what situation do they apply? The problem is all proposed legislation makes them to broad- for instance, you would need a background check to lend your friend a gun at a range etc... What about people with CCW permits? Do they also have go through the background check system if they have already been cleared as evidenced by their permit?

2. Safe Storage Laws- So it's the fear of prosecution, not of their child getting killed, that will make parents lock up their guns? I'm actually not totally against this but how it is worded is what makes/breaks it for me. I wouldn't be opposed to a law that requires you to secure your guns when you or another adult is not in the home. You should be allowed to keep a loaded unlocked firearm in your night stand.

3. Mandatory Training- I don't know what problem training hopes to solve. Most gun accidents aren't due to lack of training- they are because people certain people are irresponsible and act like idiots. The only thing training does is make these people "trained idiots". You would still have the same accidents. Not to mention I have a problem with forcing everyone to go through training- what If I was informally trained by a friend? If such a law passed I would have to spend money to take a training class even though I've been safely handling firearms for over 10 years- without any formal training.

4. Beef up BATFE- I don't really have any issue with this- as long as their is proper oversight

5. Strict CCW Regulation- I'm not against this if it is coupled with a universal shall-issue system good in all 50 states. That's a true compromise

6. Registration- first of all, you can't guarantee that it will never be used for confiscation- if the law is passed by congress the next congress can rescind it. It's pretty much worthless. Also, the costs of registration would be astronomical and there would be low compliance. It's simply not worth it. Canada learned the hard way after spending a few billion dollars.

7. Mag limits- Not against a limit but I don't understand your logical for handguns. Most handguns have 15 round magazines. Not to mention what about pistol calibre rifles that take handgun magazines?

8. Repeal SYG law- Why is there a reason this needs to be done?

On edit: while some of the ideas are good it really comes down to how the legislation is actually written

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 02:49 PM

5. All good points,

 

and these would have to be worked out with the cooperation of gun owners and gun control advocates over a period of time with the hope that some good will come out of this.
I know it sounds like double speak, but there it is.

As far as mag limits, I meant to edit it to say 15 rounds max for a hand gun and 30 rounds max for a rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:09 PM

10. OK

1 Yes, every time a fire arm changes ownership. Why? Because status of the buyer changes, who is legal today may be a felon next week and the Gov is forbidden to keep records on current owners. To check every exchange is a compromise.

2 Safe storage should be part of the education/training program. Sufficient penalty for violation has to be part of incentive it comply, say, a manslaughter charge for any negligent discharge resulting from failure to safely store.

3 Training is part of being responsible. Your friend may not be qualified to instruct, who knows anything about your friend? Also see 2 above there's more to education than shooting. Did you know that the majority of guns are stolen from the bedside nightstand? Just moving the gun when you aren't there reduces the chance of theft greatly.

8 SYG laws are proving to be problematic with pretty bad results. Bigots and Walter Mitty types are using them to defend undefenseable behaviour
You have always been able to legally defend yourself if threatened but you were required to retreat if possible. What issue can anyone have with asking an armed person to avoid killing if safely possible?

Thanks for the consideration of the points we can agree on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 02:54 PM

7. Good ideas, but I say no to 6 and 7.

 

There is no way to guarantee that registration lists would never be used to confiscate.

Handguns often hold more than 10 in a magazine, no reason to limit it to 10.

I'm fine with 30 for rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 02:59 PM

8. I think there would have to be a severe penalty for registration being used

 

for confiscation, how, maybe a SCOTUS decision?

And I did rectify the 10 limit to 15 for handguns and 30 for rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:06 PM

9. Just who would enforce any penalty?

 

Registration is the definition of a door that can not be closed. You are going to need to give up something big if you want national registration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clffrdjk (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:13 PM

11. What's left give up?

Guns in bars? Done. Guns in church? Done. Stand your ground? Done.
What more is there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:22 PM

13. Universal shall issue CCW valid in all 50 states...that would be the START of what I would need

in order to entertain the idea of a national registry

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:25 PM

14. How about you make the cops abide by the same rules and regs I have to.

 

How about removing the 18 month wait time, $200 tax and $300 for the lawyer to fill out the paperwork for hearing protection.
How about reopening the NFA registry.
How about letting me have a rifle with a barrel less than 16" without the above mentioned 18 month wait, $200 tax and $300 lawyer fees.
Hell maybe even get rid of the import restrictions so I can buy the same rifle a Canadian can.
You guys came up with all the rules you figure out which ones you want to offer up in your compromise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clffrdjk (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 04:07 PM

22. I chose you to reply to

Because you seem to be the most comprehensive list maker. First this guy is an FFL (C&R). I 'come up' with rules supported by the vast majority of gun owners, NRA members, and the public at large.

I can get behind the silencer thing. Hearing is a good thing. Getting a second shot at game is a good thing if you're so inept you can't do it right the first time.

NFA registry? I see no point in importing/selling an unlimited variety of weaponry. I can see some reasonable changes such as the M1 Garland cache found in S Korea being re-imported because of their historic significance but other than instances like that I see no reason to mess with it.

Same goes for sbrs and other restrictions. My opinion. YMMV, good on you.

Import restrictions addressed above.

Now, any suggestion on how to reduce the 30,000 plus gun deaths in the US?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #22)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 04:39 PM

23. Thanks I guess, those were just a few things off the top of my head

 

Because you seem to be the most comprehensive list maker. First this guy is an FFL (C&R).
A historical artifacts guy I can respect that.

I 'come up' with rules
"Came up with" that was a hint, look at laws that have already been implemented and find some that you think might sweeten the pot. Judging by the latest round of legislation you need me far more than I currently want to help you.

Supported by the vast majority of gun owners, NRA members, and the public at large.
The last one that could be said to fit that would be the Brady law requiring background checks on all new purchases.

I can get behind the silencer thing. Hearing is a good thing. Getting a second shot at game is a good thing if you're so inept you can't do it right the first time.
Good I am glad you can see it from my perspective but nobody mentioned hunting and keep your insults to yourself.

NFA registry?
I meant the machine gun registry, no changes on the restrictions just allow new ones to be registered.

I see no point in importing/selling an unlimited variety of weaponry. I can see some reasonable changes such as the M1 Garland cache found in S Korea being re-imported because of their historic significance but other than instances like that I see no reason to mess with it. Same goes for sbrs and other restrictions. My opinion. YMMV, good on you.
See that's the problem with gun owners like you, you don't see the point or don't want it for yourself well then why should anybody else have it. When the real question is why shouldn't they be able to have it.

Now, any suggestion on how to reduce the 30,000 plus gun deaths in the US?
Seems to me the large majority of those are suicides. Mag restrictions and registration will not do a thing to reduce those. So we have some mental health issues that we need to address, and I don't have the expertise to suggest how.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:31 PM

17. National reciprocity

My MN issued permit, received after completing approved training allows me to carry in my home state or NYC if I choose, limited only by standard no carry areas i.e. schools, courts etc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 14, 2014, 08:36 AM

32. Open the NFA!

Cash and carry/ instant supressors and SBR and SBS tax stamps. there is absolutely no reason I need to wait 9-12 months to pay the tax on my SBR, if i can own a fireaem legally, I can legally own in most states.
Universal, and shall issue nationwide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:27 PM

15. Fairly reasonable

6 no,there is no way to guarantee that someday the list would be used for partial/ full confiscation. I know we are told no one serious talks about confiscation, yet i seemmoremmention of that than those saying the 2A means zero restrictions. We hear that alot, though such absolutist is never seen here.

7 not a big fan of mag limits, but i will accept a limit thay applies to LEOs and government agencies as well as the People.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #15)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:31 PM

16. I agree that there is presently no way to guarantee that

 

a future admin. wouldn't use it for confiscation, that's for smarter people than me to figure out.

I agree that what's good for govt agencies is good for the general public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:37 PM

20. If someone could come up

With an ironclad guarantee I would consider registration.

Unfortunately I'm not that smart person

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Reply #16)

Fri Feb 14, 2014, 08:53 AM

33. What is the reason(s) for national registration?

 

Perhaps the discussion would be helped by identifying clearly and convincingly Why a national registration scheme (Guns? Gun-owners? Both?) is needed or desireable.

How would such a scheme differ in impact from a state issuing an official I.D. or D.L. on which a code denotes the bearer's eligibility to purchase a firearm?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #33)

Fri Feb 14, 2014, 09:40 AM

35. I'm kinda leaning away from a national registration

 

and more towards a national FOID card, I said earlier that there would have to be iron clad prohibition of use of a registration for future confiscation, but upon further reflection, I don't see how that can be accomplished.
I also like the idea of state FOID cards if a national one isn't doable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Reply #35)

Fri Feb 14, 2014, 10:12 AM

40. I am puzzled as to why NICS isn't just opened up.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #40)

Fri Feb 14, 2014, 10:16 AM

41. I am too,

 

that would solve a lot of problems with private sales of firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Reply #41)

Fri Feb 14, 2014, 10:40 AM

42. And cheap, too.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #42)

Fri Feb 14, 2014, 12:34 PM

44. I think the NRA, and a lot of larger retailers oppose letting go

of that ol' 4473 due to the money they make off transfers. It's not just the fee, but traffic into and out of the store... I myself have been bored and stuck in my local gun store, and ended up walking out with ammo, some Hobbes #9 and CLP, that i remembered I "needed" while waiting for a lower to clear. Plus theres always all the latest Alex Jones drivel from the friendly neighborhood Airborne recon SEAL delta Ranger, necessitating new batteries for your Peltors...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 19, 2014, 10:27 PM

46. because you are clearly expecting an armed confrontation with the gov't

as a solution to some problem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #46)

Thu Feb 20, 2014, 11:35 AM

47. Do tell...

What problem am i expecting that the solution is an armed confrontation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #46)

Thu Feb 20, 2014, 02:35 PM

48. Actually, I think it's more likely he believes ...

because you are clearly expecting an armed confrontation with the gov't

as a solution to some problem

... that the lives of the armed agents of state security should not be counted as more valuable and more worthy of protection than the lives of any other citizen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:33 PM

18. On #8, do you mean replacing SYG with an explicit duty-to-retreat law,

or do you mean a return to an implicit SYG (such as we have here in CA, due to some very old court decisions)?

For #5, I agree, with the caveat that it be "shall-issue."

#1-4 seem the best and most useful, depending on how the legislation is actually written (or the money spent)...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 14, 2014, 09:43 AM

36. Not quite sure on this one,

 

It shouldn't be an explicit duty to retreat, but SYG should be tightened up somehow.
As I've said, I'm just throwing ideas out there hoping to start a thoughful discussion without the usual insults and rancor that seem to follow these threads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Reply #36)

Fri Feb 14, 2014, 10:01 AM

39. those are the only two choices

the pendulum has been swinging DTR or SYG for the past 136 years. Both theories follow five principles
http://lawofselfdefense.com/the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense-in-a-nutshell/

The hardest to define is reasonableness. What is reasonalbe in Wyoming and New York, both DTR, is different than Florida and California, both SYG. It varies between the states and federal level. For example in Florida, if the attacker backs off or retreats you can not continue or counter attack. I think that is true of most states other than California, where you can in some cases (yet they have a duty to retreat within the home.)
Like I said before, I think the problem is disinformation from DTR fans and laziness on the media's part.

I do think every state's CCW class should should explain those principles in detail as well as that state's statute or common law on the issue. That, and people who carry without knowing how to open the revolver's cylinder, is my biggest issue with "green" states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:37 PM

19. problem with SYG

which is a use of force law, nothing to do with gun control. What about states that are SYG by common law, which includes California and Illinois? Most states, 33 in all, are SYG either by statute or common law (Georgia is actually both, they simply codified what was already common law for that state.) If a band were to go on tour and boycott all SYG states, their west coast tour would be only Hawaii and Wyoming. Wyoming's common law actually can go either way, but generally leans towards to duty to retreat. Given the small population and low violent crime rate, I don't think there is actually any precedence either way. I only know for certain that finding out first hand isn't on my bucket list.
Should they pass duty to retreat laws?
The only problem I see with SYG has been the misinformation by the media. I can't think of a real self defense case where SYG mattered, since the defender either could not retreat or tried to even if not legally required to. A Tampa area high school student who stabbed a bully and Gabriel Mobley, a Miami area African American guy who shot two white attackers.
There have been cases where the guy claimed SYG as some kind of magic phrase. Two Florida cases come to mind: Dunn, based on the trial evidence I saw, is going down for murder. Another was a false confessor in Tampa said she was "standing her ground" even though she wasn't there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 03:49 PM

21. Good Post!

 

1 - Already have it on new. Unenforceable on old. Criminals don't do background checks.
2 - Unenforceable
3 - Unenforceable
4 - OK with this, but won't be all that effective and will probably only lead to abuses.
5 - OK with this, but lack of such training has not shown to be a problem.
6 - Unenforceable and, as already mentioned, it is impossible to guarantee such a list would not be used for nefarious reasons. Besides, why would anybody believe such a thing? We were first told that gun control did not mean registration. We got registration. Then we were told registration did not mean bans and confiscation. We got bans and confiscation.
7 - OK with this, but will have no effect on curbing gun violence.
8 - OK with this, but will have no effect on curbing gun violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MO_Moderate (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 06:01 PM

25. Unenforceable is a straw man

2 Like traffic laws enforce after the fact. Put people in jail for 10 years if guns not stored safely result in death/injury and gun owners will store guns safely. Like using cell phones in school zones, pay a couple $200 fines and ya' learn to put the phone away. Do people still speed? Yeah. Does every body speed? No.

3. How is it unenforceable? Wanna buy a gun, do the background check and get the firearms course. Universal BG checks will take some time to be really effective but the
unchecked guns will eventually dry up.

6. Unenforceable short term but long term guns fall into 3 categories: lawfully registered, lost in Uncle John's closet and harmless or, if found, confiscated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #25)

Fri Feb 14, 2014, 09:57 AM

38. Unenforceable is reality

 

2 - To be clear, I am not against encouraging safe storage of weapons, nor was I criticizing the opinion of the poster. We are talking about individuals homes, not public places, and there just is no way a safe storage law can be enforced, and we already have laws that can be used to hold people responsible for negligent deaths. IMO, threats will not work like you all hope.

3 - Look at the new CT law that requires registration of scary looking weapons as an example. A small number registered, the majority did not. With door to door searches or 'citizen' tattle-tales, there is no way of knowing who belongs to which group. Besides, seeing how criminals don't care about background checks now, why they would care about 'training?'

6 - Hundreds of millions of guns and gun owners. Registration and non-registration has already led to confiscation. Anybody with a brain is going to claim they don't have a gun or that all of their guns are lost in Uncle John's closet.
If CT can't get people to submit to registration, how do you figure the whole nation will.

Like I said, I'm not against everything on the list, I'm just pointing out that most of it is impractical and will be ineffective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MO_Moderate (Reply #38)

Fri Feb 14, 2014, 10:53 AM

43. Are traffic laws ineffective? To some small degree yes, people still speed.

However I hesitate to think what the morning commute would be without them. The reason we still have banksters misbehaving is nobody has gone to jail. The goal is to reduce gun violence, not eliminate it, which is not possible.

Surely you can't disagree with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 04:45 PM

24. 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 Laelth (Reply #24)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 10:37 PM

30. The Democratic Party didn't even mention "gun control" till 1968.

 

Pushing control has brought us the modern NRA, and the greatest liberalizing of gun laws in our history. But I have never objected to all Ameticans having a clean criminal b.g., and no adjudicated findings of mental incompetencies before obtaining a firearm.

I am struck by this: In a climate of strong pro-2A rights, cut backs in mental health and safety net funding, and few legal requirements for safely securing arms, the gun-homicide rates, and childhood gun accident rates have both gone down markedly. Something is working. It would behoove all of us to find out what that thing is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 06:12 PM

26. I could go for every thing except #6.

All the rest would be a good start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 06:39 PM

27. I thought I was going to have a problem with this.

 

I don't, not on a single point. California already has almost all of this in place. Cali has a 10 round law on mags for semiautomatic center fire rifles and handguns. I like your way better.
The 9th court in cali just made a big ruling today about what is necessary to justify a CCW in that state. Things are still changing even in good old cali.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 08:42 PM

28. I'm with you up to the end.

One through Five are fine.

Number Six places too much trust in government to keep its word.

Number Seven is unnecessarily restrictive; I would make the handgun limit 20 to account for extremely common 9mm handguns like the Glock 17. In fact, I believe that magazine limits do nothing; magazine capacity is essentially self-limiting by the viability of the technology. Huge magazines -- 100-round AR magazines, "snail drums" for Glocks, etc. -- are unwieldy and unreliable novelties anyway. But I'm willing to compromise on a piece of security theater that some people seem to think is important.

Castle Doctrine is not sufficient; it only protects the individual in his/her home. SYG is misunderstood. In fact, it removes the necessity for victims to expose themselves to further danger before resisting with lethal force. Flight is not always the safer option.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2014, 10:20 PM

29. 1 - 5 I generally support, depending on details & Commerce Clause problems.

 

I can't support nat'l registration as the feds Will seek to gain access, and gun control groups Will seek to gain access and publicize such data for nefarious reasonsl.

Can't support #7 and #8 as these have little bearing on societal problems.

I also support national reciprocity regarding weapons carrying.

I think schools and institutions where some psychopath may try to wreak havoc should strengthen their armed presence; we have approx. 100k schools, and apprix. 20k armed personnel now. The latter should be increased substantially.

Felons who are convicted of weapons violations should spend some years actually in prison. Most homicides are committed by veteran criminals, and law enforcement resources should be concentrated on getting these people off the streets.

Legalize now illegal drugs.

Begin massive infrastructure rebuilding, with vigorous labor recruitment in poverty-stricken and crime-ridden areas.

Return to serious efforts at fostering mental
health.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Original post)

Fri Feb 14, 2014, 08:11 AM

31. The principle I work from regarding registration is this...

There is prudence in knowing who may own guns, but none in knowing who does own guns.

Background checks on the front end are where focus should be placed, not registration. Stated another way, government should have to prove that I don't have the right to own a gun (through criminal offense or adjudicated mental illness), I shouldn't have to prove that I do by registration. The goal of registration is to keep track of me just in case I commit a crime in the future. We do this for sex offenders and parolees, people who have committed crimes in the past, not law-abiding citizens.

I would like to see a system put in place whereby a private seller can run a go/no-go instant background check by calling a 1-800 number and giving a driver's license or some other id number. For all the ado about the "gun show loophole," it seems nobody actually wants to close it by allowing private background checks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bazinga (Reply #31)

Fri Feb 14, 2014, 09:04 AM

34. Opening the present NICS to All sellers is often advocated in this group.

 

I certainly don't object to that, and it could be voluntary immediately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Original post)

Fri Feb 14, 2014, 09:48 AM

37. Thank you everyone for the feedback,

 

it's been most educational and interesting, and very civil except for a few comments on the thread I posted in GD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Original post)

Fri Feb 14, 2014, 03:04 PM

45. I support 1 through 5.

 

In fact, I advocate for them...

#6 is a non-starter for me. I see little benefit and some degree of risk in registration.

While #7 has no effect on me personally (none of my firearms holds more than those amounts), I don't support mag restrictions because I consider them useless, largely unenforceable, and I don't like creating black markets.

I don't object to the theory behind SYG laws and in fact would give no consideration to a duty-to-retreat law if I found myself in an applicable situation. That is, the law would play no part whatsoever in my decision as to whether to fight or not. That decision would be based solely on what course of action I considered to provide the best chance of avoiding being killed or injured. I don't consider it to be within the State's purview to make this decision for individuals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sked14 (Original post)

Thu Feb 20, 2014, 04:29 PM

49. After some serious thought

 

And Creekdog's gentle prodding I have come to the decision that registration will never be acceptable. And I seriously have to think about if I can support anyone who desires registration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clffrdjk (Reply #49)

Thu Feb 20, 2014, 07:04 PM

50. I am of the same mind, for the same reason.

 

I'm concerned about how many rights my so-called fellow progressives are willing to give away needlessly.

We'll have to fight harder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread