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

[spin]

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?