Gun Control, That Could Work?

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
This thread is an attempt to propose real laws that may help keep guns off the street and away from criminals, with only a minor inconvenience to law abiding citizens. This is from a Connecticut standpoint only because I know the firearm laws in CT., so assuming every state was like CT. let us begin.

#1 For anyone who wishes to purchase a firearm in CT (this includes private sales and gun shows), who does not have a pistol permit, must have a “Buyer’s Card” A red card for people under 21(18/older) to purchase rifles and for persons over 21, a white card to purchase rifles and/or pistols.

#2 No person without a pistol permit, or buyer’s card would be permitted to buy ammo. Any ammo bought online, regardless of the amount, could be shipped to any store (not only an FFL) to be received, with the store charging no more than a $5 fee (if any).

#1 and #2 Explained, A “Buyer’s Card” would be issued after background checks, costing no more than $100 and good for five years. (You would still need to do the paper work and background checks when purchasing a firearm, same as now.) This will get rid of the 14 day waiting period, (as there is not one with a permit or hunting license). This will also allow a person over 21 to purchase a hand gun for home defense (you need a permit to carry, not own). This will also stop criminals from being able to buy ammo. We would need strict, tuff laws on selling ammo (black market). Laws like 10 years to life. And this will stop any unlawful buying of firearms at gun shows, or in private sales. This does not mean anything has to be registered with the state.


I also believe that all states should require a permit, but that the permit should be good in every state and that every state gives them as shall issue. No bullcrap, if you pass the background checks you get your permit.


SHALL ISSUE: States with "shall issue" systems require a license or permit to carry a concealed handgun, and applicants must meet certain well defined objective criteria. However, unlike "may issue" systems, a "shall issue" state removes all arbitrary bias and discretion, compelling the issuing authority to award the permit. These laws require that the empowered authority “shall issue” a permit to applicants who meet the criteria defined by law.



I also believe the Connecticut Assault Weapons ban should be lifted, Assault Weapons are banned the CT ban only includes cosmetic things, such as a folding/retractable stock.

What do you guys think? Is this fair? Is this workable?
I’m off to work, I’ll read/reply when I can, Thank you.




posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GunzCoty
 


Most "criminals" don't buy their guns legally, skirting that entire process... the ammo though, that might work, ignoring the small community of "reloaders" who essentially make their own rounds, this could potentially help to an extent.

there's no single stop gap solution, only applied pressure from various angels. Sadly, the ardent pro gun community still refuses to acknowledge there is even a gun violence problem at all, so it's still an impass.

And from what I've seen and heard, here and elsewhere, anything at all that adds any steps, checks, or information, is a no go. They want guns, ammo, without regulation, and they don't want anyone to know about it.

A gun registry won't stop much, but it sure will cost a lot, ask any Canadian about that one.

So yeah, lets concentrate on ammo, that might be something to consider, no where does the amendment state ammo, it merely states the right to bare arms to keep a militia.

Again though, it's ever American's right to buy ammo, so good luck regulating that.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Take a look at Chicago and NYC gun control is saving innocent lives!



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GunzCoty
 


Hmmmmm, something is missing here.

As I read in a news article yesterday,


Biden plans to meet Wednesday with gun safety organizations and gun violence victims' groups, a White House aide told Fox News. The next day, he plans to meet with gun ownership groups as well as advocates for sportsmen.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney confirmed Tuesday that the National Rifle Association was invited -- the NRA later confirmed to Fox News that they will be sending a representative. Biden has also scheduled a meeting with representatives from the entertainment and video game industries.


Source

What's missing???? Anyone see Big Pharm or doctors who prescribe these medications?? One thing other than guns that most of these shootings have in common, is the SSRI's that big pharm and doctors hand out to people like candy. Hmmmmm, I wonder why Big Pharm is being protected??? Think about it.....

Our government officials can't be sincere in trying to solve the problem, when they bow down to Big Pharm and refuse to acknowledge that there is a connection with SSRI's and these shootings. Perhaps if the government would quit hiding behind an agenda and show that they are willing to hold Big Pharms feet to the fire, things might not be as polarized such as they are at the current time....Why should law abiding gun owners be forced into more draconian laws, when we can see that Big Pharm is getting a free pass in all of this craziness?



edit on 9-1-2013 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-1-2013 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I didn't read the whole thing because the VAST majority of guns used in crimes were not purchased by the one that used it.

They are stolen or imported illegally.

Criminals don't just commit murder - they break the other laws as well. All your suggestion does is create problems for law abiding Americans.

This trend of printing our names and addresses is a PERFECT reason why registration has to stop. You might think its funny but its going to swing back in your face when the Republicans have total control. We all deserve the right to know whether our neighbor killed their own child. I want to keep my children away from that person. Don't you?



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
Take a look at Chicago and NYC gun control is saving innocent lives!


So is Connecticut and Sandy Hook elementary. They had laws on the books and posted signs - "Gun Free Zone" and strangely someone ignored it.

What we need is total mind control. We need every person to be drugged and connected to a hive mind that processes their thoughts 24/7 and can detect when a person has a bad thought. Then we can just execute that person where they stand and everyone will be safe. Don't you agree? /sarcasm



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Well OP, I appreciate the attempt to wade in with a reasonable approach. I disagree with it but it's an attempt at least and it's all gotta start somewhere.

I disagree with a blanket card/permit to own or buy a gun because permit would suggest privilege, which this clearly is not. That is what the Heller decision established in just 2009, to be so recent. It's not like we're pointing to a Constitutional ruling dating back 100-200 years for clarity. It was established as an individual right and as an absolute in those terms, by that case. Of course, the Super Court must really be run by the infamous Mr. Murphy of Murphy's law fame because they also clearly stated regulation was permissible and for lower courts to hash out and get straight.
Leave it to the Robed ones to solve one problem and create a whole new one.

So ... The concept of regulation is fair, but the priv. suggested by the equivalent of the Illinois firearms card isn't, IMO. There are things broken in gun regulation and could be fixed with reasonable people negotiating in good faith ..but that's the trick right now.
edit on 9-1-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
I dont get it.

You want me to have a permit. Alright, I already have one for a dozen different states. That's fine. You proposal is actually cheaper.

But why ship the ammo to any store? Seems like an unnecessary obstacle.

The card is supposed to keep the guns out of bad peoples hands anyway and if bad people have access to guns they shouldnt have then surely they have access to the ammunition too? And what is ammunition worth without a gun?



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by GunzCoty We would need strict, tuff laws on selling ammo (black market). Laws like 10 years to life. And this will stop any unlawful buying of firearms at gun shows, or in private sales. This does not mean anything has to be registered with the state.


This is what turns small crimes into big crimes...If someone knows they are potentially going to jail for life for selling ammo...they will do everything possible to avoid going to jail...killing cops etc...you effectively render the sense behind the law irrelevant at that point...

The three strike law in a way increased violent crime because the guy who's on his 3rd strike for stealing a cupcake...is going to murder to avoid jail...hes going to EARN that life sentence...when trivial things are punished equivalent of first degree murder....there isn't much keeping them from committing murder after stealing a cupcake...




SHALL ISSUE: States with "shall issue" systems require a license or permit to carry a concealed handgun, and applicants must meet certain well defined objective criteria. However, unlike "may issue" systems, a "shall issue" state removes all arbitrary bias and discretion, compelling the issuing authority to award the permit. These laws require that the empowered authority “shall issue” a permit to applicants who meet the criteria defined by law.


How exactly does all this keep criminals from concealing their weapons, getting ammo, having a gun, then doing what they want with it?



What do you guys think? Is this fair? Is this workable?
I’m off to work, I’ll read/reply when I can, Thank you.


I think its more proof that guns AREN'T the issue....CONTROL is...and we have some control freaks running rampant through the government right now.

I still don't see how these laws they are going to implement will keep anyone safer...only those who obey the law will be subject to the new laws...

I can understand the background checks as that's really just informed commerce and sales...that is responsible business ownership....but the rest of it is a reach I think.
edit on 9-1-2013 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   


I disagree with a blanket card/permit to own or buy a gun because permit would suggest privilege, which this clearly is not.
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


You don't have a choice in CT, if you don't have a permit you need a "eligibility certificate" to buy a pistol. Rifles you can buy at 18, just a 14 day waiting period and background check.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   


But why ship the ammo to any store? Seems like an unnecessary obstacle.
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


You're right and I have changed my idea to allow ammo in any amount to be shipped to your house.
You could just give the ID number when ordering.

The idea is to make it a little harder to prevent gang bangers from having easy access, we know a criminal will get ammo, but we don't have to hand it to them. I know not a lot of people would like the idea, but I though it was better than a %50 tax hike on ammo and banning the buying ammo online, as well as the reporting to the police of a 1,00 rounds or more.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I can see that some people missed the point, or did not read the post.


In reality this idea (with a few changes) would really be a little bit better than the laws are now. (again in CT)
And the truth is, it would appease the media sheep, while in truth getting rid of the 2 week period.
I now know that an electability certificate last 5 years, so in realty if it was reduced to the age of 18 it would be the same thing as what I was saying. The ammo issue is the only Idea that would be different. And again compared to what they want to, and may well do, it's a hell of a lot better.

Criminal will kill, rob, rape, etc we all know this. The will still have guns and ammo, the idea was to hinder their ability to get ammo, while appeasing the sheep and gun grabbers, having them believe they "won" something.

Again, this was based off of CT law only, because I live here and don't know every state law.
And I still would like to see my permit good in every state, FFS I can drive in every state.
I would like to get rid, or change the law to be able to buy a pistol/rifle online and have it sent to my house. I have a permit why should I go to an FFL?





top topics
 
2

log in

join