Can firearms be classified and scheduled like drugs? (Or are they already?)

Great Debates
1

If all the guns disappeared tomorrow, I probably wouldn’t notice. They’re just not a big enough part of my life. But I am sensitive to people’s concern about the government interfering with what they consider important rights.

So when I think about how to solve the problem of regular mass shootings, one solution that comes to me is classifying and scheduling firearms according to their potential destructive power, and applying different rules for different classes. I am definitely not saying this should be a substitute for enforcing the rules that are already on the books. It should go without saying that the background checks should be improved and enforced. But is it too much to ask for citizens to accept a higher burden for the sake of owning especially powerful weapons?

Suppose we say that good ole’ fashioned hunting rifles and shotguns are in Group 3, where you just need a permit and no violent crimes on your record.

Then handguns and guns that could reasonably be used for home protection are Group 2, where you need a clean criminal record, no dishonorable discharge and mental health clearance.

And that leaves the really dangerous weapons in Group 1. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask people who want to own these “assault weapons” to jump through a few more hoops. Such hoops could include an even more thorough background check, and maybe having to take a class.

But the main difference with owning one of these Group 1 weapons would be in your responsibility for what happens to it. You would be required by law to keep it in a safe when it’s not in use. You would understand that, if your weapon is used to commit a crime, and it can be demonstrated that you didn’t take reasonable steps to prevent it, then you’re liable for charges up to homicide. Obviously if terrorists sneak into your house, drill your vault and steal your guns, and you report it immediately, then you’re in the clear. But if you get drunk and pass out at a shooting party, and somebody steals your gun and kills a bunch of people, then you have to go to jail.

And if you want to sell one of these Group 1 weapons, it has to go through an exchange, where only people who meet the burden laid out in the permitting process can buy. It can be like eBay for guns, where you put your gun up for sale and interact with eligible buyers, set up meetings with them where they can inspect your goods for themselves, and if they decide to buy it, the payment goes through the exchange. This way everybody is protected from liability.

Is this a bad idea? Would this be putting unreasonable burden on law-abiding gun owners? And can we possibly talk about this without fighting, please?

2

There are already a number of classifications for firearms, based either on their appearance or cosmetic features in some cases, or their operation in others.

For example, federal law prohibits the sale to civilians of machine guns manufactured after 1986. “Machine gun” is a class of weapons with a definition in law, and rules apply to it that don’t to other firearms. There are also classes for destructive devices, short-barrel rifle and shotguns, AOW (Any Other Weapon), pistols vs rifles, etc. Some states have assault-weapon bans that treat those differently than other firearms.

3

The problem with the OP, is that in most cases in the media, the words assault weapon really just mean scary, millitary-looking rifle. They are closer to a hunting rifle with a larger (possibly) magazine than they are to a handgun.

Right now, 18+ can buy any rifle with a background check (I believe the laws differ by states).

You have to be 21+ to buy a handgun also with a background check.

Other than changing the minium age to 21, none of the proposed laws or existing laws would have stopped the latest shooter. In fact, I cannot imagine a reasonable law that would have stopped him (or any of the recent shooters). Ok, the Texax church shooter should not been able to purchase with existing laws due to his conviction for abuse of his wife and child, but that never made it into the background system.

So other than the Texas shooter.

None had criminal records.
None had been diagnosed with a mental disorder.
None bought the weapon within short time of using the weapon.
None used more ammo than a sport shooting person would reasonably own
But yes, let’s make them more difficult to get than already because that has worked wonders for drugs.

4

Actually, according to Wiki

5

Ahhh, the evil barrel shroud, that infamous “shoulder thing that goes up”.

6

I’d rather not talk about what specific features make one gun scarier than another. What I was trying to establish was whether or not there exists a certain class of firearms for which the level of regulation I proposed for a “Group 1” scheduling would be appropriate. Mainly the part where the owner accepts the legal responsibility of keeping the gun from getting stolen, and is not allowed to sell it to anyone not cleared to own it.

My position is that it would be appropriate for weapons that have the capability of targeting and shooting a lot of people in a very short period of time. How many people and how much time is something we can discuss, but only if you accept the premise in the first place. If you don’t, and you think this kind of regulation is inappropriate for any type of gun, then you can say that.

7

It sounds like at least some of what you are talking about is already law.

NFA.

8

According to your groupings above, Virginia Tech was committed with Group 2 firearms.

9

Like I said, I don’t know anything much about guns. I expect that, if there are to be groupings, then people with a lot more gun knowledge than me would be the ones to decide which guns go in which groups.

10

The challenge is that even really mundane weapons are quite capable at killing plenty of people given the right circumstances. The guy in Norway several years ago (I believe this is still the deadliest shooting spree) used a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, which was exempted from the original federal AWB, probably for cosmetic reasons.

11

That bold part right there is something I’ve been wondering about for a while… WHY do we have that right? Has it just not been made illegal?

12

To some extent, that’s why we have any rights. If you’re asking specifically why it’s legal for people to sell their firearms in private-party face-to-face transactions (in most states), I doubt I could give you a satisfactory answer. Lots of reasons, none of which you’ll probably find very compelling. There are some limitations on this already though. Senator Coburn had a proposal that would have required background checks on private-party face-to-face transactions, but Democrats rejected it.

13

So when you say that no existing law would have stopped the shooter, you’re really cutting the legs out of the gun rights advocates’ refrain of “We don’t need new laws, we just need to enforce the ones on the books!”

And as far as you not being able to imagine a “reasonable” law that would have stopped him, you’re putting a mighty big caveat on that statement. To wit: anything that would have stopped him, you consider unreasonable.

14

I don’t think I’ve seen any new laws proposed that would have stopped him either.

15

Why would an assault weapon ban not have prevented the purchase of an AR-15?

16

It might have prevented the purchase of an AR, but I think that’s the wrong question: would preventing the purchase of AR-15s have prevented this school shooting? Or would the shooter have simply used a different gun?

17

Because AR15s were sold, uninterrupted, during the ban. The two I own right now were both purchased during the ban. I sold my pre-ban ARs at obscene profit and purchased AWB-compliant guns that were functionally identical.

18

I don’t know about that. This person was a client of mental health facilities. Police were called based on his behavior over 20 times. The FBI was called based on his purported behavior, threats, etc. He was expelled for disruptive and violent behavior, including threats. He was the subject of warnings to staff at the school. I think there is a case to be made about the existing law regarding involuntary mental health detention, and an opportunity to shore up the safety net for mental illness.

That would be reasonable to me.

19

There is also the thing that a featureless lower can be purchased legally even during the ban, and features could be easily added that would trigger the banned treatment. A person intent on committing mass murder probably wouldn’t be dissuaded by the illegality of putting on a pistol grip which takes 1 minute or less.

20

Maybe two, if you’re clumsy and slow about it :wink: