Common sense reasonable gun laws

Great Debates
21

I could get behind the OP suggestion of a screening/evaluation and then you get a 5-year permit to own whatever you want, if you pass. But, what happens if you don’t pass? Does that mean no guns for you? Or that you need to relinquish the guns you currently have?

I think it is fair to ask what law, new or existing, would prevent some of the high-profile crimes we have seen. Looking at Newtown, that kid was messed-up and known in the local mental health system, so no guns in his home. Sorry for the mom who was the owner of the guns he used, but no guns in his home. The CO theater shooter may have also been known to mental health officials - no guns for him. The San Bernardino couple - that one is tougher as there were few warning signs (at least that we know yet). At least, if they were on the terrorist watch list, no guns for them. If you are a paroled felon, no guns. Etc.

I am suggesting that rather than implement more laws we should focus on restricting access from those who have no business being near guns, using existing data. We have a lot data on people as it is today, but we seem to find distaste in using that info to restrict access to guns for certain people.

If someone acquires a gun illegally (if they are a member of one of the restricted groups), then if they are found with a gun they should not have (traffic stop, subsequent arrest, etc.), then the penalties are more severe/special circumstances, etc.

I think there is room for compromise - if gun owners are willing to submit to a screening/evaluation and registration every 5 years, they can acquire whatever they want. But failure to meet the requirements of that evaluation means someone loses access to guns, period.

22

Screening/evaluation sounds good. How do you plan to do it on a completely objective basis so that the screeners can’t deny permits to people who are the wrong color or religion ( or just not issue any)?

23

The watch lists are already constitutionally suspect IMO. Using them to ban people from exercising a right that the Supreme Court has decided is protected as an individual right by the Constitution is a good way to have them thrown out entirely. I’ll admit that I’ve been enjoying watching the right wing squirm about the no-fly list for the past couple of weeks but that doesn’t suddenly make them good policy.

24

I oppose storage requirements inside the home. The areas in which the state has valid interests in gun policy pertain to those areas in which guns are in the public sphere.

I think people who have children in their home, or who know children will be visiting their home, have a responsibility to insure those children do not have access to firearms until such age as they can be trained and educated on their safe handling and use. If the gun owner fails in this regard and bad things happen he should be both criminally and civilly liable. But it cannot be the role of government to tell us how to store guns in our own homes, we must maintain for ourselves at least some degree of freedom and decision making authority within the walls of our private residences.

I’m a life long gun owner, but have always supported a gun control regime that’s ultimate goal is to make gun ownership “neither easy or automatic” which is how it is now. Gun ownership should be seen more like owning and operating a motor vehicle, something that people who are interested enough in doing it, and who are willing to go through several hoops, can do, but others cannot.

My short list would be:
-Issuance of a gun license, this requires safety and education similar to that required in most states to get a hunting license. No one who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, has a felony conviction, is on a terrorist watch list, or is subject to a domestic violence protective order may be issued a gun license and any person who has one who acquires one of these statuses is required to relinquish their license. I would allow persons with felonies or involuntary mental commitments to have this right restored, but it would require a period of say, 5 years from commitment/incarceration have passed, the sign off by a local “Chief Law Enforcement Officer” in the jurisdiction where you live and a sign off on the equivalent of a state pardon/parole board in your jurisdiction (for felons) or a mental hygiene commissioner (for people mentally committed.)
-You cannot buy a gun from an FFL, store, anywhere without a gun license. And anyone selling a gun, even private person to private person, is required to record your gun license information when the transaction occurs. If they fail to do this it should be a major offense (a felony.)
-If you inherit a gun without possessing a gun license, you may keep the gun, but it cannot leave your house except by transport in a locked container. You will need to file paperwork and receive an exemption document that details the guns you’ve inherited and this document must travel with the gun if they leave the house.
-Concealed Carry permits will only be issued to those with a gun license, but require additional training on both the law, gun safety, how to carry a gun safely and etc. I’d say somewhere around 40 hours of initial education would be required. Additionally, every two years to keep your CCW you are required to certify at a shooting range proficiency with a firearm.

In reality I doubt most of these are realistic. My short list of more realistic (but still unlikely to happen except in liberal states) items would be:

-All private sales or gun-show sales are required to go through an FFL intermediary who runs a background check
-People on a terror watchlist be prohibited from buying guns

What I have generally found distressing is no one seems to actually want to pass reasonable gun control. Instead they want to write “scary weapon bans”, ban things like certain types of magazines, and in some municipalities make it so it’s almost impossible to own a gun. I think it’d be much better if we had the sort of gun laws I outlined above, pass a Federal law that muscles the states to pass uniform versions of said law (similar to how we use highway funding to force .08 as the maximum BAC to legally drive, seat belt laws, 21 year old drinking age laws and etc) and make those laws universal–with no municipalities crafting their own laws. I don’t believe the county or municipal level is an appropriate venue for variations in gun laws.

25

To require citizens to produce documentation does not become the definition of a fascism. It may be an element of some fascist governments in the past. But even then fascism is more descriptive of intent than it is to action. George Orwell wrote in 1944 that “the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless … almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’”.

26

My newspaper column had my real name on it.

27

I’m sorry, are there people in this country who attend church and synagogue secretly? In my experience, it’s always been the very definition of a public activity, but YMMV.

You carry a driver’s license to drive, and use it (or an age of majority card) to buy liquor or a plane ticket. I don’t see any right in the 2nd Amendment to bear arms anonymously. Plenty of states require a special license to carry a concealed weapon, as they damned well should.

28

You are asking people to take a gun that goes bang every time you pull the trigger to a gun that ALMOST always goes bang when you pull the trigger if you are wearing the right ring. The failure rate on some of the early stuff was so bad I think it gave a lot of people a bad taste for the stuff.

Would you be willing to eliminate all gun safe requirements if I have a gun with safe gun technology? It sounds like you might but a lot of gun control folks wouldn’t.

I am supportive of smart gun technology and I intend to buy a smart gun as soon as the majority of police forces in this country adopt them.

29

The main problem is that it’s a proposal from someone who has very little understanding of firearms, and it shows.

“Hunting rifle?” This casual phrase suggests you believe there is such a thing as a generic hunting rifle, good for … well… hunting. You don’t seem to understand that there’s a gulf of difference between a .204 Ruger Hawkeye (a “varmint” rifle primarily intended for non-game) and Ruger #1 in 7mm, designed to take down moose or elk. And in between, you have a deer rifle, say the Ruger American in .30-06, and the Ruger Hawkeye Alaskan in .375 for brown bear. (Yes, yes, I am a Ruger fan),

Now let’s talk shotguns. Do you understand that shotguns come in gauges? And different lengths? And that each of these has a purpose? Do you understand that a 12-ga Mossberg with an 18 inch barrel is an excellent choice for home defense but a lousy choice for trap shooting. Do you understand that a Browning Citori 725 over-under, with a 32 inch barrel, is great for trap but not useful for wild turkey? Do you comprehend that the functional requirements for a duck/goose hunting shotgun might differ from those of a slug gun for deer, even though they are both shotguns?

When the constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, why in the world would I agree to submit my list for some judge’s approval? If the judge shares your knowledge of hunting, what outcome is likely?

30

Psycho gun hoarder?

It sounds like you might not be objective in how you are approaching this.

31

You do not have to. For example, I have no idea who you are despite the fact that the government is not allowed to muzzle your speech on this board.

PACs can accept anonymous donations.

I don’t think anonymity is required by the second amendment but your proposal seems to be coming from a “people who own guns (especially a LOT of guns) are suspect” perspective.

32

Admittedly true. I’ve lived near sites of recent mass shootings and had an uncomfortably close call with the Beltway Sniper, though, so I reject the insinuation that I don’t have any skin in the game and should leave this problem to the freedom-loving NRA.

Did you catch the part where I said I’m cool with you owning up to six firearms no questions asked and up to twenty with just a potential for having somebody ask questions? You mentioned four. And BTW, I’m fine with setting the upper limits higher; I’m mainly suggesting some upper limits are a reasonable accommodation. What they are won’t be up to me.

Nothing in the Constitution guarantees you an unlimited armory. As to the likelihood the judge is a gun-hater, I refer you to the mention of the judges being locally-elected. I shouldn’t be able to select your judge, but neither should the gun lobby.

Yes, I’m the freak and this guy is a reasonable patriot.

33

I disagree. There are tens of thousands of gun laws in the country, and most seem to be ignored. Enforcement would go a long way to reducing gun violence.

This was the centerpiece of Project Exile.

From the link -

But the NRA would be against it, right? Nope.

It seems to have helped a bit.

No new laws needed, support from the NRA, and positive results.

That seems to fit the bill of ‘common sense (and) reasonable’ to me.

34

I don’t want the thread to drift away from guns and toward me, but I’ll address this, this one time.

Like the vast majority of people on this board, I post under a zany pseudonym. It’s the tradition on this board, and to imply that it’s problematic or cowardly is to have missed the boat by a good fifteen years.

I could post under my own name–I do on Facebook, and I don’t express any views here that I wouldn’t there–but it’s different. My Facebook friends, for the most part, know me personally and I doubt more than a handful of Straight Dopers know me from anywhere but here. There’s a reason I don’t post under my own name: I’m not a public figure, but I share a name with someone who is. Posting under my own name would trade on the reputation of a well-known public figure.

If you get the reference “Horatio Hellpop”, you’d see that it tells you a lot more about me than my somewhat misleading “real” name would (I’m a comic book fan and an academic). If you ever have a compelling need to get my real-life information, shoot me a PM and plead your case. Or contact the admin.

35

Yeah, I own a lot of guns and almost exclusively for hunting (aside from a couple pistols I own through inheritance, and a target pistol, and one single pistol I’ve purchased for self defense.) Aside from the one pistol I’ve bought every gun I’ve purchased has been a long gun, I’ve been asked before why I “need so many” and this is basically the answer. I’m a hunter, I hunt white-tail deer, elk, bear, coon, squirrel, duck, turkey…and there isn’t a great gun that does all of those. I could make do with fewer guns, but I couldn’t effectively hunt all of the above with one firearm. I could maybe get by with three, but it’d be sub-optimal, and if you’re spending the amount of time in the woods required to hunt successfully, why do that?

36

Nothing in the constitution guarantees you an unlimited amount of free speech, an unlimited amount of votes, or an unlimited number of abortions.

What you forget is that the constitution tells the government what it can or cannot do, not what we citizens can or can’t do. The correct way to look at this is that there is nothing in the constitution allowing the government to limit the number of guns an individual owns.

37

So, to take a step back what’s ‘common sense’ about creating a whole lot of new gun laws without enforcing existing ones? Like Dobbs’ links have pointed out, a lot of the things you’re trying to make new laws for are either already illegal, like selling a gun to a felon, but that doesn’t seem to stop them from happening, and people don’t get prosecuted for them even in high profile cases. Wouldn’t it make much more ‘common sense’ to go attempt to prosecute everyone who sells a gun illegally under the current system, rather than a make a lot of other things illegal?

BTW, this is why most pro-gun people tune out when people start talking about ‘common sense’ gun laws. Typically what ‘common sense’ translates to is a whole lot of hassle for the law-abiding but next to nothing to actually stop or slow the criminal or insane. Anti-gun groups talk a lot about background checks, but actually oppose any useful universal background check legislation, when the NRA has backed bills to require and provide the means for low-hassle, no registration universal background checks they’ve consistently opposed it. They also seem to forget that the only reason we even have background checks is because the NRA lobbied for them.

38

When you have, as we do, an epidemic of mass shootings–about one a day at this point–who, if not the government, is tasked with finding a solution? The NRA’s solution is less regulation, more guns in more hands, and it isn’t helping. Something’s gotta change. I’ve made my suggestion. What’s yours?

39

Sure. But “the government” can’t violate the constitution, so I’m not sure what your point is. And it should be noted that gun deaths, still very high in the US, have been on the decline for years. Mass shootings count for only single digit percent of total shootings. The real problem with gun violence in the US is what might be called “street crimes”.

I don’t know that there is a solution, short of getting rid of the 2nd amendment.

40

Oh…let’s start with the NRA is an organisation with a few million members that don’t amount to even 10% of the national population. Going by board received wisdom, NRA membership consists entirely of inbred fundamentalist hoopies who live in doublewides and hump their sisters. If you can’t politically best such hopeless hot messes as this board relentlessly characterizes gun owners, then I guess you should be looking at yourself, not the NRA.