What would you consider resonable gun control?

a reply to: FredT

I think you have to look at the fact that it is a Constitutional Right and ask "How many Constitutional Rights have tests, licenses, or restrictions in their free exercise thereof?" The answer to that is effectively "None, aside from the 2nd." I mean we have court rulings declaring it unconstitutional to require an ID to vote, because it is a Constitutional Right... see the issue?

In answer to your question, I find most current firearm restrictions to be infringements and unconstitutional. Until an individual commits a crime and loses their right in due process, no restrictions are Constitutional.

originally posted by: FredT
So what would you consider to be reasonable in terms of gun control?



1) Require basic education (like an NRA safety class) for all gun owners.

Yes, yes, and yes. When you look at the number of gun deaths in the U.S., most are accidents and the result of improper use of a firearm, or playing with it like a toy. I've seen so many untrained idiots thinking they are John F-ing Wayne do dangerous stupid # with firearms, because the entirety of their firearms knowledge comes from watching TV and Movies. Mandatory basic safety, handling, range practice training is a good idea. We require people training to drive a car or operate any other piece of machinery. Instilling in them to never point a gun at anything they wouldn't be 100% comfortable putting a round in.

Naturally, military and law enforcement personnel, as well as related security occupations, would be exempt from this requirement, since gun safety and range training a a part of their jobs and they get it even more in depth.

2) Gun ownership would now be like a drivers license. Periodic registration to make sure you are still entitled to own and carry and you must show proof a safety education refresher each renewal period)

No. Pointless, cumbersome, invasive.

3) Mental illness, felony convictions, No fly list, etc will resort in a loss of gun ownership

No. At least, not such a broad brush here. Felony convictions? Yes, for violent felons, property felons, and members of organized crime and gangs. But because I feel that "crimes" such as drugs and prostitution shouldn't even be felonies, I don't believe all felons should be banned. Mental illness? Depends on the type and severity. It's a very broad, and slippery brush to paint, as a number of things are classed as "mental illness" that do not make a person dangerous or unstable. No-Fly list? Again that's a shaky one. First, fix the whole no-fly list process the government uses to put a lot of innocent people on, and then yes.

4) Individual states would decide suppressor and CCW laws

They already do.

5) Guns can only be sold/traded through a FFL trader and no straw sales

Already are on both accounts. Straw Sales count in most places as being accomplice to the crime.

6) 10 day waiting period on all firearms to ensure a complete background check.

10 days? No. In today's world, a full background check can be run in 3. This isn't the 80's anymore. I live in Washington. For my firearms purchase, my background check was done in 3 days. My CCW the same.

7) Maintain the ban on fully automatic weapons

Depends. Special permits for military and security personnel, since they like to do a lot of off duty training.

I think this represents a pretty good balance.

Thoughts?

With some adjustments, yes.

originally posted by: Nickn3
Delete 2,6,and 7. I think anything the military uses should be available to the public as per the 2nd amendment.

No. Just No.

There is ZERO reason for a civilian to have grenades, grenade launchers, anti aircraft guns, shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, claymore mines, M60s, miniguns, ect.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: FredT

I think you have to look at the fact that it is a Constitutional Right and ask "How many Constitutional Rights have tests, licenses, or restrictions in their free exercise thereof?" The answer to that is effectively "None, aside from the 2nd." I mean we have court rulings declaring it unconstitutional to require an ID to vote, because it is a Constitutional Right... see the issue?

In answer to your question, I find most current firearm restrictions to be infringements and unconstitutional. Until an individual commits a crime and loses their right in due process, no restrictions are Constitutional.

You deserve to sit on the SCOTUS

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

originally posted by: Nickn3
Delete 2,6,and 7. I think anything the military uses should be available to the public as per the 2nd amendment.

No. Just No.

There is ZERO reason for a civilian to have grenades, grenade launchers, anti aircraft guns, shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, claymore mines, M60s, miniguns, ect.

I'm sorry but you may not take my 155mm motorized howitzer, I sleep better at night just knowing it's there. And, you never know when a terrorist may be holed up in a cement bunker 20 miles away.

Other ways to promote gun safety, over forcing gun owners to make more compromises. If you give anti-gun people an inch they will a mile.

1) Require basic education (like an NRA safety class) for all gun owners.
A)Other ways to promote gun safety without adding more restrictions


2) Gun ownership would now be like a drivers license. Periodic registration to make sure you are still entitled to own and carry and you must show proof a safety education refresher each renewal period)

A)Owning a firearm is a right not a privilege like driving is.

3) Mental illness, felony convictions,No fly list, etc will resort in a loss of gun ownership
A) You want to do way with due process?

4) Individual states would decide suppressor and CCW laws
A) suppressor shouldn't be restricted at all

5) Guns can only be sold/traded through a FFL trader and no straw sales
A) It's already illegal to make a straw purchase. If i want to pass down my firearms to a family member, i should be able to do that without having to ask the government for permission

6) 10 day waiting period on all firearms to ensure a complete background check.
A)Not down for any waiting period. If someone feels their life is in danger, they should be able to purchase a firearm that day. Police can't protect you, they only show up to fill out reports

Short of a Constitutional Amendment to specify which 'arms' are and are not covered by the 2nd Amendment, any and all restrictions on weapons of any sort are illegal. That includes nukes.

If we're talking about an amendment...

1) Require basic education (like an NRA safety class) for all gun owners.

My only concern about that would be who is teaching the course. As long as there is some way to ensure that the subject is taught objectively, I personally have no issue with it.

Alabama has required such courses for hunting licenses for some time now. I support that.

2) Gun ownership would now be like a drivers license. Periodic registration to make sure you are still entitled to own and carry and you must show proof a safety education refresher each renewal period)

No! A right which one has to ask permission to exercise is not a right.

3) Mental illness, felony convictions, No fly list, etc will resort in a loss of gun ownership

Mental illness, only above a certain level, and no silly made-up illnesses like Anti-Authoritive Disorder.

Felonies, OK as long as they are violent or especially if a firearm was used.

No-fly list, HELL NO! There is no remedy or even notification of inclusion.

4) Individual states would decide suppressor and CCW laws

Only within the bounds of the Constitution. And in return, CCW's must be recognized by other states, just like my Alabama Drivers License is recognized in California. If I have a CCW from Alabama, I can legally pack heat in California.

5) Guns can only be sold/traded through a FFL trader and no straw sales

No. Guns are property and should be able to be traded like any other property on an individual level. That means Dad can buy his son a .22 rifle, or I can sell that old 20-gage I haven'the needed in years to my neighbor who always admired it. I would support legal ramifications for selling a firearm to knowingly to someone legally unable to buy one.

For a business to sell, fine, register. Just not for individuals.

6) 10 day waiting period on all firearms to ensure a complete background check.

With modern communications, anything over 24 hours is unnecessary. That said, I can see some reason in a 3-day 'cooling off' period.

7) Maintain the ban on fully automatic weapons

No issue with that, although I do wish the FFL could be brought back for collectors and aficionados.

Incidentally, I would support the Amendment I mentioned above, as long as it was not overly restrictive. I really don't want my neighbors to have a nuke, it's just that the Constitution says they can.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Short of a Constitutional Amendment to specify which 'arms' are and are not covered by the 2nd Amendment, any and all restrictions on weapons of any sort are illegal. That includes nukes.

I hate to disagree with you, so I'll let another member's old post spell it out.

originally posted by: FredT
So what would you consider to be reasonable in terms of gun control?

We have two extremes that seem to be duking it out. Group A wants to ban everything and Group B wants a strict 2nd amendment interpretation (I need that M61 Vulcan to hunt).

Will it reach those high flyin' geese? The ones that circle and mock me, just out of range??

What would be an acceptable middle ground? Remembering that in any good negotiation no side side is 100% happy:

1) Require basic education (like an NRA safety class) for all gun owners.

I'm all for that. No issue with this, what so ever.

2) Gun ownership would now be like a drivers license. Periodic registration to make sure you are still entitled to own and carry and you must show proof a safety education refresher each renewal period)

Only if, as in my case, you have a CCW or the like, or a LEO. Ordinary Joe? No.

3) Mental illness, felony convictions, No fly list, etc will resort in a loss of gun ownership

What is the mental illness? Varying degrees of such. Felony? Again, what's the crime? No fly? Why aren't you allowed to fly...I could imagine scenarios that might not preclude ownership...

4) Individual states would decide suppressor and CCW laws

Absolutely. States should decide this. ...and should be as identical from one state to another as possible. My Washington state CCW should be just as valid in Tennessee, as it is in Washington. But it may not be. Just travelling through other states with it in my overnight bag could be construed as a violation of a states laws... Too many variables.

5) Guns can only be sold/traded through a FFL trader and no straw sales

No. IMHO, it's already too difficult for me to purchase and/or trade a firearm.

6) 10 day waiting period on all firearms to ensure a complete background check.

See my answer above.

7) Maintain the ban on fully automatic weapons

I really don't have an opinion on this, except for that Vulcan Goose-hunting gun...I need that!!!

I think this represents a pretty good balance.

Thoughts?

Some yes, some no. But I'd rather err on the side of no regulation than too much.

Oh, and a nice tight grouping at 400 yds, say a hand span. Gun control I like.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: tjack

I get 2 inch groupings at 20 ft., in under 1.5 from an IWB holster.

Yeah, but when bullets fly in your direction those groupings tend to widen somewhat. I've seen videos of cops who couldn't hit a cow in the arse with a banjo during a shootout. Spray and pray mode.

a reply to: Snarl

Disagree all you want. 'Arms' are weapons. I'll bet good money if I were to attack a police officer with a machete, he would consider me 'armed.' If I had a nuke, I believe he would still consider me 'armed.'

I prefer to just read the words. Trying to twist them into agreement is too much work IMO.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Soloprotocol

It's rather scary that I had absolutely no problem visualizing that... I'm genuinely not sure what to think about that.

As for the pray and spray? Too true. Under pressure almost everything is tougher.

The gentleman who has been instructing me in situational shooting stresses stress. Goes out of his way to make it as difficult as possible to concentrate.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

I've seen videos of cops who couldn't hit a cow in the arse with a banjo during a shootout. Spray and pray mode.

That's the dangerous part. Spray and pray is useful for distracting a group of attackers, making them hesitate while they get to cover (and giving you time to get to cover). But in other situations, it's a good way to shoot bystanders while you're getting shot.

I've looked down the barrel of a shaky gun being held by a cop who was scared white as a sheet. I was already busily deciding what moves I would need to execute to try and disarm him, while politely asking, "Officer, please lower your gun before you hurt someone." Not an experience I care to repeat. Those who cannot maintain composure under stress, like the one in my example or those in yours, should not be assigned to duties where they may need to use a gun.

Which is all the more reason to oppose any government attempt to regulate firearms. The government gave them the gun in both examples. That decision does not give me confidence in the government's decision-making process.

TheRedneck

Being able to hit your target .

a reply to: FredT

Proper gun control means using two hands.

Second line.

The gun laws in Texas are fairly reasonable.

a reply to: FredT

1) Require basic education (like an NRA safety class) for all gun owners.
*Not a bad way to go... but would cost a ton of tax dollars.

2) Gun ownership would now be like a drivers license. Periodic registration to make sure you are still entitled to own and carry and you must show proof a safety education refresher each renewal period)
*Takes away the Constitutional right to own a weapon.

3) Mental illness, felony convictions, No fly list, etc will resort in a loss of gun ownership
*Already does for the most part.

4) Individual states would decide suppressor and CCW laws
*Gun owners would have to flee Calif-forn-i-a.

5) Guns can only be sold/traded through a FFL trader and no straw sales
*Takes away the Constitutional right to own a weapon.

6) 10 day waiting period on all firearms to ensure a complete background check.
*Pretty much the practice already.

7) Maintain the ban on fully automatic weapons
*There's an idea!

Have a nice day

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Of course they will. I'm not stupid and won't just stand there Rambo style trading shots in the open. It's after I find cover you need to really start worrying. Without going into long, drawn out macho stories, I've been in situations 4 times in my life that I had to pull a gun. I don't twitch, shake and freak out under stress. I realized long ago that staying cool might just mean the difference between life and death.
Worried? Scared? Trying to think of ways out that don't involve getting shot or having to shoot someone? Damn straight. Once again, I'm not stupid. But I don't freeze up or freak out.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: FredT

7) Maintain the ban on fully automatic weapons

Since when were they banned?

Technically speaking any machine gun after 1986 was.

New ones.

Pre 86 was grandfathered in.

Of course out of the reach of most people since they can't afford them due to the cost.

IOW, they aren't banned.
People own them. People shoot them.
The price increases after 86 made the arms themselves expensive, but the tax isn't prohibitively expensive.... not that I agree with the law.

a reply to: av8r007

In my opinion this has been the best reply so far.A star was not
enough for this post,these are for you...