What would you consider to be a reasonable set of gun laws?

[RSillsbee]

In the interest of getting an idea of the demographic (should be all progressives right?) here I want to ask where different people are on what constitutes reasonable restrictions on the second amendment.

My answer is

1. Registration at any level is a Federal crime

2. I'll keep NICS because I can't prove it's not the reason felons aren't buying guns from FFLs
2a Anything you do to get around NICS (I.E. straw sales) stays illegal too.

3. If you can legally own it, you can legally carry it.

4. I'd open the NFA registry and take a serious look at repeal.

5. Violent offenders lose their rights permanently

[valerief]

1. At birth, we should have our hands replaced with guns. That would solve the problem!

The overpopulation problem, that is.

:rofl:

[spin]

3. Your comment is at least original. (n/t)

[valerief]

7. I'm still cracking up over it. I amuse myself so easily. nt

[jazzhound]

19. Like you had to inform us of that! NT

[TheCowsCameHome]

21. If so, you'd better be very careful...

...picking your nose.:rofl: :rofl:

[valerief]

26. Ha!!!!

:rofl:

[spin]

2. Basically I like the laws of the state I live in.

Florida has "reasonable gun laws".

There is no registration of firearms.

You can own a firearm for self defense in your home without kissing some bureaucrat's ass. You can carry that firearm loaded in your car if it is "securely encased" (In a glove box, snap holster or a box with a lid such as a cigar box.)

Florida is a "shall issue" state and if you pass the background check, have the necessary training and provide fingerprints and a passport photo along with a very reasonable fee of $117, you get a seven year concealed weapons permit.

Florida is a castle doctrine state and has a "stand your ground" law. If you have a concealed weapons permit, you can take your gun to work and leave it in your locked vehicle in the parking lot.

All states need, at a minimum, laws similar to Florida. Why should I have more rights as an American citizen than a resident of Chicago. San Fransisco or New York City?

[X_Digger]

4. 'cept for that pesky waiting period. :) (TX has it's own peccadilloes)

[spin]

12. I bypass the waiting period as I have a concealed weapons permit ...

many people who like to buy new firearms, shoot them for a while, and then trade them get concealed weapons licenses. They can buy a new handgun on Friday and test it on the range on Saturday.

[mcollins]

5. Do away with all guns.

Give everyone swords.

[Pavulon]

8. Assault swords and Long swords would be regulated by the ATS

with an insane level of complexity..

[valerief]

9. Wands are better. They're magical. nt

[AlinPA]

6. #3 might shake up some people if someone walked into a Shop 'n Save market toting a shotgun.

[RSillsbee]

10. You might think you're joking

but there was a gentleman in Colorado who used to carry a shotgun about his daily business. His name was Donald Ortega.

[AlinPA]

13. When I was out west I saw a couple of people in stores with holstered guns and it was no

issue, but carrying a shotgun into a grocery store back east would more than raise a few eyebrows.

[Callisto32]

31. Depends on how you define "back east."

I live in rural, central PA, and I often walk to where I am going to shoot with an AR slung about my person. I don't get a second look, usually.

[AlinPA]

36. Have you gone into a Giant Eagle or Martins with one?

[SteveM]

38. I went into an Academy Sports & Outdoors with a shotgun...

about 8 years ago. I received a polite escort from a store employee merely because some clod had tried to walk out with a gun a month ago without paying.

[SteveM]

37. People frequently carried arms about the courthouse square in Gainesville...

Florida when I was a kid; all the hardware stores and gun smiths were located there up until the 70s. Often, actions were open and/or red flags tied around the action as a matter of courtesy. Gun cases were not as common. All this didn't surprise me or my family, since we owned a couple 'dozen firearms.

[TheWraith]

11. Off the top of my head?

Keep the NICS. Require that licensed firearms dealers make NICS checks available to private sellers if the seller so chooses, for a small nominal fee.

No permits or licenses required to purchase a standard firearm kept in the home.

To get a concealed carry license, you have to pass an NICS check; a short paper test to demonstrate reasonable familiarity with carry and self defense laws; and a proficiency test where a qualified range instructor observes whether you know how to safely load, chamber, handle, fire, and make safe a handgun.

Remove sound suppressors from the National Firearms Act, and let them be over the counter accessories again. Reopen the NFA registry.

Make it against the law to plead down illegal weapons charges when committed in concert with a felony, ending the "packing peanuts" approach DAs use in plea bargaining.

Create a new type of Federal Firearms License, akin to the Curios and Relics license, but one which allows a person with a proper background check to purchase modern firearms for personal use shipped directly to their home, instead of just antiques.

[-..__...]

15. I can go along with that...

as well as the OP's suggestions.

CCW permits would be "Shall Issue" and reciprocal among all 50 states.

The few states (2), that don't allow any CCW would have no choice in the matter and would be required to issue permits
to their citizens and honored out of state.

Residents in those states that don't require any permit (2?), could issue or make available a voluntary permit for citizens
traveling out of state.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

23. I concur (with the addition of dropping the Hughes Ammendment)

n/t

[littlewolf]

35. I like it .... a lot ... good ideas all .....+1

[customerserviceguy]

14. I'd also find a way to include mentally ill persons

in the list of who cannot own or possess, but I'm not sure what criterion you'd use to draw the line. I wouldn't deprive a person who has had to take anti-anxiety medicine, especially if it were for a fleeting period in the distant past, but I think we'd all agree that the criminally insane, whether convicted of a violent offense or not would be banned.

[PavePusher]

16. This is already the law. n/t

[customerserviceguy]

17. I thought we were dealing with a hypothetical question in this thread

It seemed to ask, "What would be an ideal set of gun laws?" and not, "What gun laws exist?"

In some cases, even a person who has been evaluated for mental distress, on the flimsy word of a person with a grudge, is enough to keep an otherwise free individual from their Second Amendment rights. So, it's not "already the law".

[SteveM]

39. "Already the law" means it passes 5A muster...

though extending the "terror-watch list" or "no-fly list" to include prohibition of gun purchases violates the Fifth. But the law stands otherwise: you cannot be declared mentally incompetent (and thereby unable to legally purchase a firearm) if you have been adjudicated as such.

[valerief]

18. Criminally insane people should take a test. Some can handle a gun but some can't.

Like driving and texting.
:hi:

[customerserviceguy]

42. OK, you're just getting annoying

I never said that texting while driving was OK. In fact, I've turned texting off on my phone, and on other threads, I've advocating eliminating at the source, which is the telcos, since whatever anyone has to say can be conveyed by voice calls.

But, if you insist on being a goofball, have some fun with my response to you.

[mr_liberal]

20. Id get rid of almost all federal laws, if not all

and allow each state to decide the extent of the right.

From the supreme court Id like to see a basic level of protection that even a state couldn't take away. that would include a handgun in the home.

I may leave it up to states then to decide concealed carry and what kind of guns are protected. Machine guns for example would be up to individual states.

Thats just off the top of my head... I havent thought a whole lot about it.

Ill just ad that Im glad the supreme court upheld a basic right to self defense in the home and Im very disappointed and embarrassed in the liberal justices that they couldn't even do that.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

22. I'd say NO to your #3

I can legally own a Machine gun (in fact I do... a M-11/9 machine pistol) but no way in hell should anyone be allowed to carry automatic weapons. They cannot be controlled and when you squeeze the trigger on a machinegun you'd be lucky to be hitting the target after the first 3-4 shots. In some states, NFA hardware CAN be carried with the CCW permits... but I don't support that.

Automatic fire is for suppressive/offensive purposes. The ONLY time a civilian should be allowed to draw the gun is in a defensive situation. Period.

I also would not want someone carrying a shotgun in public for the same reason... it's too indiscriminate with the multiple projectiles. It's fine for home defense in some situations but carrying in public shows lack of foresight.

[derby378]

25. Actually...

...I can control a 9mm Uzi in full-auto mode with a stubby vertical foregrip, no problem. This is the full-size Uzi, not one of those mini-Uzis that kicked backwards and cut down that boy in Massachusetts.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

41. Yeah, but that's more of an SBR... not really a "carry" weapon.

With a stock, foregrip, and slower firing bolt I can keep a magazine dump on a paper plate with my Mac-11/9. But in configurations like that, MACs and UZI weigh a few pounds and are not really good to comfortably carry.

Try shooting a mini/micro UZI or MAC like a pistol. If your not hitting the ceiling at the range after the 5th shot... you're doing a good job - lol.

All in all, I'd just have to say prohibiting people from carry F/A daily for defensive purposes is not an anti-2A stance to take.

[derby378]

43. I'd like to try that one of these days

Can a Mini- or Micro-Uzi mount a stubby grip? That would help.

[Katya Mullethov]

24. Administrative decisions are not law

I would return the definition of a machine gun back to " One pull of the trigger" from its current status of " whatever we say" , and I'd probably do a lot more house cleaning along those same lines , maybe end up leasing Technincal Branch out to mushroom farmers .

[Euromutt]

30. Absolutely!

A machine gun should be legally defined as a firearm that is designed to fire multiple rounds with a single pull of a single trigger, as oppposed to firearms that will do so if you remove or modify parts in ways the designer never intended.

I'll disagree with your subject line in one minor point, which is that "administrative decisions"--that is, regulations set by executive agencies--should not carry the force of criminal law. They can still be law, in that they require agents of the agency in question to behave in a certain way, but they should not impose criminal sanctions on private citizens.

[Callisto32]

32. I think I would remove "designed" from that definition.

Something like "Machine Gun: Any firearm that fires multiple rounds with a single pull of a single trigger." This would get around the inevitable argument that AK/M-series rifle clones are machine guns, since the ORIGINAL design is full auto, and the semi-automatic variants are still very close to those original designs.

[Katya Mullethov]

33. Law that changes at the whim of whomever is whimming ?

Technical has ruined a lot of good men , and they think it's funny .

I am not just talking about spending hours and hours dicking with a gun and loading specially made soft primers to make it double tap . Testifying in a single breath that the NFA registry is mostly inaccurate , gasping deeply, and then insisting it is evidence enough for a lengthy federal conviction . Could it be those that got shot up ,burned out, and/or bulldozed ?

These regulatory reamings are people like Akins . ATF assured them multiple times that their product was legal , go ahead heres an official permission slip . Go ahead and invest OTHER PEOPLES millions, and then waited until it was a few months into production , declare them contraband ,and demand they all be tracked down and turned in for destruction . This was a very valuable lesson to others that would actually create the products that WILL drive our national economic recovery .
DON'T DO IT !

And THAT is exactly the kind of innovative thinking that is driving our national economic recovery . For the organs like field agents Burnahm and Bagham . Fuck them .

[SteveM]

40. You're right. It's the administrative "authority" that is a bigger problem.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. None.

Just kidding:


1. Keep NICS, and properly fund BATFE investigations of people who apply and are denied.
2. Properly fund BATFE sting operations for straw purchasers. Direct BATFE to focus on #1 & #2.
3. Retain minimum Age limit for pistols and long guns, but set to the same age. (18)
4. All states 'Must Issue' CPL laws. Lower age to 18.
5. Repeal Hughes Amendment.
6. Enact Federal Pre-emption of state NFA weapon laws.
7. National open carry.
8. Uniform (nationwide) weapons compounding for sentencing. (Not limited to firearms)
9. Uniform (nationwide) carry conditions. (loaded or unloaded in vehicles, etc)
10. Submit all 4477's directly to BATFE, data retention: 1 year. Exceed 1 year on any record, responsible person gets similar charge to HIPAA violation criminal penalty schedule. (enable BATFE straw purchase enforcement, without creating federal registry)
11. All felons presented with due process pathway to regaining 2nd Amendment right.
12. Allow over-riding state Castle Doctrine if the state chooses, but enact national 'No Duty To Retreat' protection. (Or 'Stand Your Ground' if you prefer the title, but DTR is long established English Common Law reference)

Additional items I would like to see:

1. Supreme Court repudiation of Hughes Amendment
2. Supreme Court repudiation of State-level NFA laws.
3. Supreme Court establishment of a 'lemon test' like review for new gun laws, state and federal.

[RSillsbee]

28. Observation

I find it interesting that no one here (but me) has put forth "Vermont" style carry. That would be the first thing suggested on a (mostly right wing) site like THR.

[Euromutt]

29. What I would consider reasonable in ideal circumstances differs...

...from what I would consider reasonable in existing circumstances.

There are a number of gun control measures that I would consider desirable in the abstract, but in practice, I oppose them because gun prohibitionists have perverted them in the past in order to impose de facto gun bans by making it impossible to meet the requirements.

In the abstract--if, for the sake of the argument, we can set aside the text of the Second Amendment for a moment--I would support a licensing requirement to possess a firearm, requiring successfully passing a written and practical exam focusing primarily on the rules of firearm safety and the legalities of wielding and discharging a firearm.

Such a license, once acquired, however, would entitle the holder to possess any firearm with a caliber of less than 20mm and non-area effect ammunition (e.g. explosive or incendiary) for same. I'd scrap the NFA, on the basis that the "prohibited persons" provisions of the GCA of 1968 adequately serve to criminalize possession of any firearm by individuals who have been deemed by society to be incapable of exercising the right to keep and bear arms in a responsible fashion. The way I see it, you can either be trusted to handle a firearm responsibly or you cannot; the specific type of firearm is immaterial. Perhaps a re-certification every five years or so might be in order.

That said, I'd seriously overhaul the criteria for persons considered "mentally defective" on the basis that mental health care has changed drastically since 1968. These days, getting someone involuntarily committed to mental institution is almost impossible (see Dr. Harriet Hall's post on involuntary treatment http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=410). I'm not entirely certain what should take its place, but as a starting point, I would suggest that there exist a reporting system for an MD, Nurse Practioner, mental health counselor or family member to report any person who has been diagnosed with a mental disorder and is refusing to accept treatment and as a result may present a risk to others; such reports should then be verified by an independent, court-appointed mental health professional. (As a matter of disclosure, I myself have been diagnosed with major depressive disorder; I have a handle on it because I've sought and am following treatment, but if I refused to do so, I think my wife would be entirely within her rights to demand I be disarmed, if necessary by local sheriff's deputies.)

There also needs to be some overhauling of persons prohibited on grounds of criminal convictions. I'd be okay with amending the law that anyone convicted of a violent offense, including violent misdemeanors, be prohibited from possessing a firearm unless and until they successfully petition to have the prohibition lifted. Alternatively, or additionally, I'd support a law prohibiting the plea-bargaining of any felony involving a firearm down to a misdemeanor. By way of example, I cite Kyle Huff, perpetrator of the "Capitol Hill massacre"; he had previously been indicted in Whitefish, MT for shooting up a statue of a moose; because of the price of the artwork, it would have been a felony charge, but he managed to plea-bargain it down to misdemeanor criminal mischief. The same guns he used to shoot up the moose statue, he later used to murder 6 people and injure 2 more before killing himself in Seattle.

The aforementioned license would obviate the need for NICS; any individual whose license has not been revoked is ipso facto clean, and it would avoid situations in which a person was turned down by NICS because he had the same name and a similar date of birth to a prohibited person.

And yeah, under such a licensing scheme, if you're cleared to own firearms, you're cleared to carry them anywhere that's not a "sterile" area. I'm okay with giving up my tools of self-defense in a zone where there are measures in place to ensure that nobody is carrying a lethal weapon, such as courthouses and (secure areas of) airports. No more "gun free zones" that only have effect on lawful carriers.

As a sop to the gun control crowd, we can allow law enforcement to stop any individual carrying a long gun in a non-hunting area (or their own property) and asking to see that person's firearm license. But if the individual can produce a valid license, that's it; no bullshit "disturbing the peace" charges for engaging in lawful behavior because some hoplophobe freaked out.

[Katya Mullethov]

34. Your liscense Sir......... where's .... your liscense ?

" Iznit back dere onda bomper ?"


So, how mcuh for a moose statue ? 100 grand ? 150 ?

[lawodevolution]

44. Let's see

1. If someone is convicted of a real crime involving violence they lose the ability to buy a gun using the NICS background check, but most of the questions asked on the form will be removed.
2. Conspiracy to remove the rights of an individual (as stated in the constitution of the United States including but not limited to the 2nd amendment as it is defined as an individual right to keep and bear firearms) not convicted in the court of law of a crime that would ban them, or conspiracy to remove the rights of a discriminable group (based on race, religion, sexuality, or political views) shall result in a sentence of no less than 5 years in federal prison.
2. Universal gun safety taught in school
3. Teach people the use of English grammar in the constitution so morons will understand that a dependent clause like "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" cannot govern the independent clause of a sentence like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
4. Law to remove the placement of US citizens on black lists and a law that makes gun registration illegal.
5. If laws in 4 above are passes I would be willing to allow the closure of private sales loophole.