HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » My definition of "se...

Wed Apr 2, 2014, 06:55 PM

My definition of "sensible" federal gun control law.

Last edited Wed Apr 2, 2014, 07:35 PM - Edit history (2)

Before we add any new laws, I think we need to make current laws sensible. My proposal is this:
Current NFA weapons:
----SBRs and SBSs become Title 1 weapons under the Gun Control Act. Why? Under current law, a single shot .22 with a 15 inch barrel are as strictly regulated as machine guns (minus the Hughs Amendment), and much tighter than an AR-15. AFAIK, we are the only country that does that and it isn't logical.
----Silencers become unregulated accessories as they are in Norway, UK, France, New Zealand, and Finland.
----Novelty guns like pen guns etc. I have no opinion either way so far.
----Machine guns and destructive devices, as currently defined, stay Title 2.
Title 1 GCA:
---keep current regulations on interstate sales.
---Change the definition of "prohibited person" slightly. Life time prohibitions would only be for violent felonies. Someone who got busted for having a joint or two in Utah in 1975 shouldn't be a lifetime prohibition. For none violent crimes (including those who shouldn't be crimes to start with) prohibition ends when you are off parole or probation. As for misdemeanor, DV (where violence is proven) would be life time.
--- Misdemeanor like simple assault, at least a temporary prohibition of five years. Getting in a one time bar fight when you are "young and stupid" is different than a 30 year old who picks bar fights just to top off "a night on the town".
----"Violent" felonies not involving humans. Lifetime prohibition on anyone convicted of felony animal cruelty, dog fighting, illegally killing federally protected wildlife (eagles for example) and poaching (IIRC, Texas made poaching a felony. In Wyoming, your third strike is a felony.) "Mentally ill" would remain those adjudicated by a judge. LaPierre's "mentally ill" registry idea, and gun control advocates jumping on his band wagon, was repugnant. It scapegoats many of the least violent people in society, and is open to be misused (antis redefining "mentally ill" simply to create more "prohibited persons". That is also the real reason behind the idea to add "terror watch list" to NICS. Which brings me to,
---"Terror watch list" aka Bushes bogus list. It should have gone the way of Tom Ridge's color code. A secret list where people land up on due to clerical errors or political reasons, without any due process, simply doesn't have a place in a free society.
Background checks:
still working on how I would do intra-state private sales. So far, I would give FFLs and incentive to do them by changing the procedures. Currently, AFAIK, FFLs have to log the gun in their bound book and log it out with the 4473. To broker private sales, I would have a different form and not require it be logged in as part of the store's inventory.
National reciprocity: I think a federal law forcing states to recognize all CCW permits from other states and territories would violate the 10th Amendment. They don't even do that with medical and law licenses.
Misc: "assault weapon" bans. It is a legal political term created for propaganda purposes. Some "assault weapons" have no military or police application at all. For example, high end target pistols like the Walther GSP are "assault weapons" in New York and California. There is nothing "military style" about them.

50 replies, 5453 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 My definition of "sensible" federal gun control law. (Original post)
gejohnston Apr 2014 OP
Jgarrick Apr 2014 #1
clffrdjk Apr 2014 #5
NYC_SKP Apr 2014 #2
Eleanors38 Apr 2014 #3
SQUEE Apr 2014 #4
gejohnston Apr 2014 #49
flamin lib Apr 2014 #6
clffrdjk Apr 2014 #7
flamin lib Apr 2014 #8
Jgarrick Apr 2014 #9
flamin lib Apr 2014 #10
Jgarrick Apr 2014 #11
flamin lib Apr 2014 #13
Jgarrick Apr 2014 #16
flamin lib Apr 2014 #22
Jgarrick Apr 2014 #25
flamin lib Apr 2014 #26
Jgarrick Apr 2014 #33
flamin lib Apr 2014 #35
blueridge3210 Apr 2014 #40
Jgarrick Apr 2014 #42
SQUEE Apr 2014 #17
Jgarrick Apr 2014 #18
clffrdjk Apr 2014 #20
gejohnston Apr 2014 #46
clffrdjk Apr 2014 #47
clffrdjk Apr 2014 #12
flamin lib Apr 2014 #14
clffrdjk Apr 2014 #15
flamin lib Apr 2014 #21
clffrdjk Apr 2014 #23
flamin lib Apr 2014 #27
beevul Apr 2014 #29
clffrdjk Apr 2014 #31
flamin lib Apr 2014 #36
clffrdjk Apr 2014 #37
flamin lib Apr 2014 #38
clffrdjk Apr 2014 #39
blueridge3210 Apr 2014 #41
blueridge3210 Apr 2014 #19
flamin lib Apr 2014 #24
blueridge3210 Apr 2014 #30
Jgarrick Apr 2014 #32
gejohnston Apr 2014 #44
flamin lib Apr 2014 #48
Loudly Apr 2014 #28
clffrdjk Apr 2014 #34
oneshooter Apr 2014 #43
gejohnston Apr 2014 #45
SQUEE Apr 2014 #50

Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Wed Apr 2, 2014, 07:05 PM

1. Throw in a repeal of the Hughes Amendment banning new manufacture of full autos, and that's one

 

hell of good package of gun reform measures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jgarrick (Reply #1)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 10:08 AM

5. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Wed Apr 2, 2014, 08:20 PM

2. + legislators have no vote without passing a basic aptitude/knowledge test re firearms facts.

 

I'd argue for the same on energy and water and labor and economics policy.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/01/13/ghost-guns-3-d-printer-california-bill/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 12:34 AM

3. I've rethought my position on CCW reciprocity...

 

and agree this may violate the 10th Amendment. If states want to develop model legislation, or some kind of compact, that's okay by me.

Opening NICS to all private transactions should have been done day-1. That way, any state which passes a UBC could plug into the existing system at negligible cost, or individuals could employ the system regardless of state action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 09:18 AM

4. I agree with many of these, and disagree with a few.

Biggest thing I would like is a National Background check for Ammo, and Firearms, a card issued for a small fee, good for three years and ran internally every quarter to ensure legality, a phone number to run for civilian sales. Caught with a firearm without being a card carrier? Class A misdemeanor, 2 nd offense? felony and no more guns for you.

I would also like to see a national standard for training outside of NRA umbrella, completely politics neutral, simple skills and legal training..... Too much opportunity to tuck in the RW propaganda

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #4)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 07:58 PM

49. Spin came up with the idea based on SCUBA cert cards

I don't show my PADI card, no air or tank rental. In the US, it is either PADI or NAUI. A similar system of using NGOs for training and background check (or you get your NICS or something like a PTP from the cops to take to the training organization. NSSF or SAAMI could create the standards and curriculum and certify the organizations for the training. Granted, the NRA is the big one, partly because of its age. It would be great if one of the unintended consequences of such a scheme would be for, say, Pink Pistols and the Liberal Gun Club give the NRA serious competition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 10:11 AM

6. That all sounds reasonable but it's all about the hardware, not about gun violence.

This approach is no different than the assault weapon ban.

Why not look at the issue of violence, define categories that you believe can be managed with legislation and then craft that legislation?

Suicide

Children & safety

Gang related

Or perhaps look into the prohibited persons list and see if legislation can be crafted to select them out by category.

I think further discussion of gun control is pointless, it isn't the hardware, its the wetware using it. Control who has the hardware.

One trap people fall into is "that wouldn't have stopped (fill in the blank)!". Speed limits don't stop all speeders and stop signs don't stop all cars but the commute to work would be a lot more adventurous without them. No law is 100% effective but people in general follow the law, hense the off repeated phrase " law abiding citizen".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #6)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 10:24 AM

7. Yep the bans/laws that these suggestions would be repealing

 

Are all about the hardware and had no effect on gun violence thank you for admitting that.
I don't believe that any of the above will happen as stand alone bills, but it is a darn good list of things to keep in mind when the next set of gun bills come up and the antigun people need something to sweeten the pot to get my support.

A bill that actually would further reduce violence will not be about guns at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clffrdjk (Reply #7)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 11:19 AM

8. This a perfect example of what is wrong with the American Gun Culture.

Everything is an exercise in how to get more and different guns, not about the violence they can bring in the wrong hands.

If gun deaths were reduced to a few thousand a year all that other stuff would happen because its superfluous. When police on active duty are less likely to be shot than toddlers, when people in their home no longer worry about bullets going through their walls from the street, when battered women stop making the transition from battered to shot then you can start talking about "what's in it for me".

Get your head in the right place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #8)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 11:28 AM

9. How odd; I thought advocating for an expansion of freedom *was* the right place.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jgarrick (Reply #9)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 11:34 AM

10. So you're okay with more toddlers under age 5 being shot than

police on active duty as long as you can get more and different guns?

Man, ya really gotta evaluate your values.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #10)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 11:43 AM

11. How many young children have been killed in the US with legally owned full auto weapons?

 

Take your time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jgarrick (Reply #11)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 12:23 PM

13. This another case of gun culture gone wrong.

Ya keep focusing on the hardware. Start focusing on why these laws, effective or not, get passed. It's the death, stupid. (Clinton campaign paraphrase)

Fix that and all the other stuff you want will come.

The gun world is going at this bass ackwards!!!

I challenge you to look at any category of gun violence and find a way to lessen it. Any. Stop looking at this as a hardware issue and start addressing the wetware.

If there is an us-against-them it should be us against the people who kill people with guns. Fix that and all other things will come.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #13)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 12:52 PM

16. All right, how's this:

 

Stop "revolving door" justice; how many times do you you see that a murderer has a rap sheet a mile long? Increase penalties for violent crimes, and make them stick. At the same time legalize all drugs.

In return, repeal the '86 ban on manufacture of full autos, remove the restrictions on short barreled weapons, and give us RKBA reciprocity between states.

Are you on board?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jgarrick (Reply #16)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 01:52 PM

22. We currently incarcerate more people per capita than any other nation.

Keep doing the same thing and get back to me when you get different results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #22)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 02:07 PM

25. Hence my call to legalize all drugs. That would reduce the incarceration rate, yes?

 

In the meantime, anyone guilty of a violent crime should be in prison for a long time, and they frequently don't. That's the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jgarrick (Reply #25)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 02:18 PM

26. Well yes more or less. It would decrease prison population and

Most people I know are down with legalizing at least some drugs. I'm with ya there. That said, I don't think punishing people for killing other people is the best answer. First it clearly does not act as a deterrent and second the victim is still dead.

The issue isn't too many guns or the wrong kind of guns, its people killing people with guns. We need to address the core issue and stop nibbling around the edges by reacting to people already dead.

Any suggestions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #26)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 03:12 PM

33. You don't think murderers should be punished? That's a...novel approach to criminal justice.

 

What do you suggest be done with them? Give them counseling so they can get past the trauma of having killed someone?

Any suggestions?

Regarding murderers? Sure.

Kill them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jgarrick (Reply #33)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 03:17 PM

35. I suggest we try to reduce the number of them.

And thereby the number of their victims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #35)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 04:01 PM

40. Again, what do YOU propose to accomplish this? NT

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #35)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 04:06 PM

42. Until that happens, what do you propose be done to murderers...if anything?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jgarrick (Reply #11)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 01:08 PM

17. I have to say

As much as i would like to see a repeal . In the interest of honesty, how many FA weapons are out there, and accesible? The rarity, the prohibitive cost of obtaining one due to the rarity, as well as the restrictions placed on storage, accesibilty and transfer pretty much guarantee they wont be used. to go back to the car analogy how many drivers in Porsche 550s are getting speeding tickets or even manslaughter charges for a fatality caused while drunk?

your argument would actually seem to say, rarity, regulation and registration is the best answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #17)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 01:18 PM

18. Were the '86 ban to be repealed, prices would plummet and availability would skyrocket.

 

There's no reason a full auto Colt M4 carbine should cost a civilian more than $1500 or so.

Just look at SBRs...other than paperwork hurdles, they're affordable and accessible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #17)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 01:24 PM

20. The numbers before and after the ban on registration of new ones.

 

Are nearly identical, next to zero.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #17)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 05:49 PM

46. how many full autos are there?

I remember reading that there are a total of 300K registered. That includes guns registered to law enforcement agencies, nuclear power plant security, and museums. For our purposes, I'll guess about half that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #46)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 06:04 PM

47. I don't think even the ATF has that number.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #8)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 11:51 AM

12. You just said this would be just like the assault weapons ban and have no effect.

 

All I did was agree with you.

Sorry but no I will not just roll over and let you pass more pointless laws. And yes I want the pointless laws of the past repealed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clffrdjk (Reply #12)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 12:28 PM

14. Don't make this personal.

I invited you to look at the violence issue from a results point of view. Its not about ME or YOU, its about getting to a mutually beneficial result.

Concentrating on "what's in it for me" and what can I get out of it is counter productive. Identify the problem, fix the problem where we can and all else follows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #14)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 12:47 PM

15. "This a perfect example of what is wrong with the American Gun Culture."

 

Too late for that.
The laws that the antigun crowd push are nothing but personal to me. They hold me responsible for the actions of others, they limit my rights saying that it will reduce violence, yes they directly affect me.

You have been talking out of both sides of your mouth, first it is that we should not be talking about "hardware" (when it comes to repealing past laws), but when it comes to future laws it is all about how we should further restrict access of the law abiding public to that "hardware".

As I said before, a law that has any hope of reducing violence will not be a gun law at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clffrdjk (Reply #15)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 01:49 PM

21. I surrender to your impeccible reason and logic.

Keep doing the same thing and get back to me wgphen you get different results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #21)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 01:55 PM

23. Why would I want different results?

 

Rates of violence are trending down.
Leaving out a handful of states for the past few years we have been getting more of our gun rights back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clffrdjk (Reply #23)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 02:22 PM

27. Uh, 30,000 dead people a year? Ya don't care about that? I seriously think you should evaluate you

values.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #27)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 02:29 PM

29. Free clue - you make it personal...

 

Free clue - you make it personal when you reply like this to someone who notes that violence is trending down:

"Uh, 30,000 dead people a year? Ya don't care about that? I seriously think you should evaluate you values."

Physician heal thyself:

"Don't make this personal".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172141808#post14

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #27)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 02:55 PM

31. How many of those are suicides? How do you suggest I stop those?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clffrdjk (Reply #31)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 03:19 PM

36. See post 21. I am defeated by your splendid skills. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #36)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 03:26 PM

37. Yea but something tells me it won't be long before you try again with the same arguments.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clffrdjk (Reply #37)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 03:30 PM

38. Yeah, but I have you on record as not caring about 30,000 gun deaths, so who in hell,

Last edited Mon Apr 14, 2014, 12:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Outside a few fellow callous gungeoneers, will ever give a shit about your opinion?

Edited to update. After many exchanges and some almost painful pleading Clffrd has shown that he really does care about gun violence and has given it more than just a passing thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #38)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 03:32 PM

39. Really where did I say that? Please show me.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #38)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 04:02 PM

41. Don't make this personal. (NT)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #6)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 01:24 PM

19. So what do you propose as an alternative.

 

If the issue is the "wetware" or people; who should be prohibited?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueridge3210 (Reply #19)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 01:59 PM

24. I threw that question out to the forum hoping to generated useful

dialog. Back at ya, who do you think should not have access to guns and how would you effectively reduce that access?

Don't beg off with "its already against the law" because these people still have guns, ergo the laws are either ineffective or unenforceable. How would you remedy that?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #24)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 02:32 PM

30. Not by passing more laws.

 

Clearly, it is a culture issue, not one of laws. If the current crop of laws are not addressing the issue of who should not have firearms it does not follow that more laws would help. One of the chief critiques of the now defunct "assault weapons ban" was that it picked the least used type of weapon (as far as criminal activity) and made them illegal based largely on cosmetic features that did nothing to address criminal use.

Some "carrot and stick" regarding improved reporting to the NICS database would be a good start (more funding/training for better reporting; less if audits showed poor performance).

Cho at VA Tech should have been listed as a prohibited person but was not; it appears due to an oversight by the authorities in VA. I don't see a problem with opening up the NICS database to privated persons; as I understand it a FFL only gets a Yes/No response when sending an inquiry so privacy issues do not appear to apply.

Your turn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #24)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 02:56 PM

32. Who shouldn't have access to firearms? People in prison or on probation.

 

As for preventing such people from having firearms, it doesn't seem to be a problem for those actually in prison. It's extraodinarily rare for prisoners to acquire guns.

Regarding parolees, I offer no solution to prevent them from getting guns, any more than they can be prevented from committing another crime. If they do, they should suffer the consequences.

Once they're no longer on parole, no restrictions. If they can't be trusted with a gun, they shouldn't have been released in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #6)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 05:41 PM

44. good point

but the OP was my basic idea of what a "sensible" federal gun law would be within the confines of the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment. The states and territories would have to take it from there.
Each of those three subjects, plus rampage/spree killers are much larger and more complex issues than any one thing can deal with, with the possible exception of kids and safety. I'll post my ideas on those later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #44)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 06:10 PM

48. Thanks. Look forward to seeing them and working with you. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Original post)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 02:22 PM

28. Why would you want to make silencers unregulated?

 

There's already too little accountability for firing a gun. Why advocate making detection more difficult?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #28)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 03:16 PM

34. Hearing protection should not be regulated.

 

And detection won't be hindered, they are still loud, just less likely to damage hearing, most rifles would still require earplugs or muffs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #28)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 04:07 PM

43. They are unregulated in Europe, they are considered safety devices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #28)

Thu Apr 3, 2014, 05:46 PM

45. it isn't like the 1970s cop shows

they are still detectable. There is no evidence of them being used in crimes either. If that were the case, anyone who knows how a car muffler works, can make one with $20 worth of stuff from Ace Hardware. The easiest and cheapest is a 2 or 3 liter plastic bottle and duct tape.
Some hunting areas and shooting ranges in Finland and France, silencers are required.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 10:07 AM

50. My quietest Supressor is 115 DB

actually the use of a high grain, subsonic round is actually the more noticeble difference in sound, now your gonna want to ban or regulate them.
As an aside, often times the slower rounds tend towards far less lethality do to a lack of fragmentation and penetration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread