Feinstein Proposing Specifics: New Gun Control Bill

[Marley23]

@Nars_Glinley

I think the question when passing a new law should be “Why is this good?”

I agree. I was asking about Debaser’s opposition to registration in particular.

If I use them illegally, then registration didn’t prevent anything. If I use them legally, why does the government need to know about them?

I could say the same thing about a car. If I’m not driving recklessly or drunk, why does the government need to know I own it? The reason is that there’s a public interest in trying to ensure they’re owned and used by people with at least a minimal level of responsibility and skill, and as Really Not All That Bright says, it does also enable law enforcement. Cars are dangerous, so the public gets a say in regulating them. That ought to be the case with guns since they are, after all, weapons. But according to some people, nuh uh.

@Debaser

How about the simply practical matter that we’re talking about millions of people, many of which won’t conform to the law.

No, this is the same lazy argument the NRA always throws out: ‘you can’t change the law, people won’t follow it!’ You can apply that argument to anything, but somehow we do have laws and people generally follow them.

What do we do with the hundreds of thousands to millions of people who we would be criminalizing with this proposal.

People aren’t being “criminalized.” And it’s the same as anything else: if you follow the legal process involved in owning a gun/car/voting/whatever else, you can engage in that activity. If you get caught violating that law, you get fined or arrested or lose the thing or prevented from engaging in that activity.

This isn’t a problem?

Not really. This system should already exist and the fact that it does not complicates matters, but if we can handle registration of cars then we can handle registration of guns. It’ll be easier to hide a gun than a car and some people don’t maintain their cars properly, so I expect some people would choose to take their chances with guns.

I asked about voting, not registering to vote

So what’s the comparison? You wouldn’t be required to go to the police station and get fingerprinted before using your gun. You and I had to register to vote, you’d have to register your gun. And of course I did have to identify myself at the polls in order to get my ballot. Nobody objects to the idea of voters having to register. The issue with the new voter ID laws is that they’re designed to make it harder for particular groups of people to vote.

I’ll widen the scope: What would it prevent?

Really Not All That Bright summed it up nicely:

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

If you use them illegally, the registration makes it easier to catch you - meaning you are less likely to use them illegally. It also makes them easier to recover if they are stolen. Have you never wondered what the license plates and VIN on your car are for?

@Debaser

Not good enough.

That doesn’t mean anything to me since you’ve already declared yourself opposed for slippery slope reasons. I think it’s very reasonable to say that if you have to register a car, you should have to register a gun. So far your only argument is that are that it would enable confiscation (which won’t happen) and you’re relying on inertia to argue that it won’t work. That’s also not a compelling reason against registration. It’s just an excuse.

[Debaser]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

What proof do you want? Right now, to tie a suspect to a murder weapon, we have to use fingerprints. Do I really have to spell out how registration will make that easier?

Any proof would be good. Because up until now you’ve offered nothing. If we implement registration, gun crimes won’t be committed by registered and lawfully owned guns.

Guess what happens if you’re caught with a gun with the ID number filed off? You go to prison. See? That was easy.

Wow, you sure solved that easy. You know what? Rob a bank and you go to prison. See that was easy. But wait, we still have bank robberies?

Here’s a clue: Just making something illegal doesn’t make it stop. Someone who is going to commit a crime with a gun isn’t going to hesitate to make sure the gun isn’t registered or has the number filed off.

What’s being “forced” on them? The inconvenience of filling out a form? Oh, the horrors!

It is horrible. The idea of creating a database of all law abiding gun owners is chilling. It’s also impractical and unworkable.

[Debaser]

@Marley23

No, this is the same lazy argument the NRA always throws out: ‘you can’t change the law, people won’t follow it!’ You can apply that argument to anything, but somehow we do have laws and people generally follow them.

People aren’t being “criminalized.” And it’s the same as anything else: if you follow the legal process involved in owning a gun/car/voting/whatever else, you can engage in that activity. If you get caught violating that law, you get fined or arrested or lose the thing or prevented from engaging in that activity.

You are missing the main point here: The element of this proposal that criminalizes law abiding gun owners is the suggestion of forcing registration of existing gun owners that already have the guns.

This would also be a bad idea if we decided to do it with cars or anything else. Car safety standards are updated all the time. Remember years ago before all the cars had a third rear light up higher in the middle of the rear of the vehicle?

But those changes aren’t retroactively enforced on existing cars. They are done on new cars going forward, because this makes more sense then changing the rules on people that are already driving around in existing cars.

This is what’s specifically so bad about this proposal. It would criminalize existing gun owners. There’s no way to handle this without criminalizing many people.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m still opposed to registration even if it’s done going forward for new purchases. However, this approach of criminalizing existing owners is particularly foolish.

[Marley23]

@Debaser

The element of this proposal that criminalizes law abiding gun owners is the suggestion of forcing registration of existing gun owners that already have the guns.

Using the word “criminalizes” over and over doesn’t impress me. It’s not “criminalization,” it’s a requirement to register. Is there a reason you prefer the scarier-sounding wording?

But those changes aren’t retroactively enforced on existing cars.

And you’re not being asked to make changes to your guns to make them compliant with this bill, nor is the ownership of any existing guns being banned. But the idea of requiring registration of new guns and not old ones is pointless.

This is what’s specifically so bad about this proposal. It would criminalize existing gun owners. There’s no way to handle this without criminalizing many people.

Yup, there it is again.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m still opposed to registration even if it’s done going forward for new purchases.

Which is why I’m taking these claims about criminalization and unworkability with a grain of salt.

[Czarcasm]

@Debaser

It is horrible. The idea of creating a database of all law abiding gun owners is chilling. It’s also impractical and unworkable.

Is the database of law abiding drivers chilling, impractical and unworkable? If gun owners rufuse to join a database, would you still consider them to be law abiding?

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@Debaser

As a law abiding gun owner, I’m opposed to this law.

Fine, but what about those who aren’t law abiding? Yes, some criminals will still be able to acquire illegal and untraceable guns, but some will buy them legally, just like everyone else, not to mention those who have no record but get desperate enough to use a gun in the commission of a crime.

This law appears to force gun owners such as myself to either get rid of our firearm or submit to registration with a picture, fingerprints and ID.

So, submit to registraton with a picture, fingerprints, and ID. What are you, as law abiding gun owner, afraid of or worried about? I don’t buy the registration-leads-to-confiscation argument. Is it a possibility? Theoretically, of course. But are legislators bound by considering every possibility that may come down the pike, no matter how remote or unlikely? Can you really tell me that you are convinced passage of laws requiring registration might lead to you losing your guns?

But even worse is the notion of specifically listing which guns, by name, can be allowed and can not. There are 120 on the “naughty” list and 900 on the “nice” list. Granting this sort of gun by gun control is a very bad idea.

Specifically listing guns makes the law more precise for guns currently on the market, obviously. Precision is good when crafting legislation. And, for every weapon banned on that list, there are 7.5 guns that would still be allowed. Is there no limit to the number and types of guns that gun advocates need?

If we implement registration, gun crimes won’t be committed by registered and lawfully owned guns.

If you can show me evidence to back this up, I’d be interested to see it. I cannot show you evidence that I feel your statement is nonsense, but it sure seems that way to me. Being that surely many guns crimes are spur-of-the-moment, unplanned occurrences, your statement is naive at best. But if registration did lead to fewer crimes being committed with registered and lawfully owned guns, that is a good thing!

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Debaser

Wow, you sure solved that easy. You know what? Rob a bank and you go to prison. See that was easy. But wait, we still have bank robberies?

… and according to your logic, we should therefore decriminalize bank robbery.

[babygoat666]

Gun owners should have to wear a piece of flair for every gun they own.

[foolsguinea]

You’re right. The assault weapons ban was a bad idea, this is a bad idea as well. We need to get down to the nitty gritty.

Here’s a possible rational standard:
Is your weapon capable of firing multiple metal projectiles, with an explosive propellant, without reloading? If so, surrender it.

[foolsguinea]

Seriously, though, you’d be grandfathered in. You should be grateful the “gun grabbers” aren’t actually grabbing anything.

[Iggy]

@Grumman

Feinstein is either corrupt or an idiot. She does not get that the problem with the first AWB isn’t that it was easy to comply with the rules, it’s that it was easy to comply with the rules because the rules were stupid. Arbitrary restrictions naturally result in arbitrary work-arounds, and playing catch-up with more stupid, arbitrary restrictions is just going to result in more arbitrary work-arounds.

So if the naughty guns list bans the ManKiller™ MX-7 then the gun manufacturer would just roll out a new model, the ManKiller™ MX-8 (now with a smoother action!) that is not on the list.

Then we all wait around until the law is amended.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

I agree that arbitrary prohibitions are met with a quick sidestep. It was the first thing I thought of when I read the idea of a banned gun models list.

[Martin_Hyde]

I’m against Feinstein’s legislation. Many of the features of the original AWB were stupid. A gun shouldn’t be banned based on whether you can put a bayonet on it…I mean holy shit, a bayonet? Or because it has a heat shield…how exactly does a heat shield make a weapon more dangerous? A pistol grip? Millions have been killed by weapons that had normal grips. A bunch of random features that have nothing to do with how dangerous a gun is should have no real place in the discussion.

My proposal would basically be this:

There would be different tiers of owner license. Any firearms you buy must be “registered to” any of the licenses you hold. Certain types of licenses allow registration of certain types of weapons.

Four tiers of individual, non-commercial license.

All licenses require a mental health evaluation and requires a background check. If you are under the age of 25 you can only acquire a “Restricted Hunter Firearm License” which grants you the right to buy exclusively single-shot long guns or double-barreled shot guns. (Single shot for those uninformed essentially means it has no capacity to store in a magazine multiple rounds, basically you fire once and have to reload the gun entirely before shooting again.)
Each license has additional requirements above the general requirement for all license.

Hunter Firearm License Grants the license holder the privilege of buying guns deemed appropriate for hunting purposes. You have to pass hunter safety courses and there is an implicit guarantee in accepting this license that any firearm licensed to you under this license cannot be used for self-defense, must be kept locked and unloaded anytime it is in the home and cannot be transported loaded and cannot be carried loaded on one’s person aside from when hunting.

Target Shooter License Grants the license holder the privilege of buying guns for target shooting purposes. There is a wide latitude as to what defines a target shooting gun, and this can include large capacity magazines. Guns registered under one of these licenses cannot be used for self-defense, cannot be carried loaded, cannot be stored loaded and must be kept locked when not in use. Additionally, this license grants law enforcement or other authorities an implicit right to, without warning, inspect your storage of the registered weapons (but does not grant them a right to search any other part of your home or storage location…plain view doctrine still applies.)

This license is “shall issue” but to get the license you must have a certified shooting range instructor sign an affidavit that they have personally supervised you target shooting at a range or shooting club at least 12 times in the prior six months. [Such ranges will be licensed and have the right to rent or loan out guns for on-range usage only, and will be allowed to charge a moderate, regulated fee for letting aspiring Target Shooters use their range and their employees for supervision/approval purposes.] As part of this certification the instructor will state that they have no reason to believe you should be denied said license.

Once you have this license you may use your target shooting weapon(s) at any range you wish without supervision, and transport them unloaded and in locked case. You can also engage in target shooting on any private property barring any local ordinance.

Self Defense License This license will have two classes. Home defense and personal defense. A home defense license has no additional requirements above those required for any other license. A home defense license allows the registering of up to three weapons as “home defense weapons.” One weapon (at owner’s discretion) at any given time can be the “primary home defense weapon.” This weapon can be stored in a quick-open gun box or safe, or can be stored unlocked if it has a trigger lock. Only the primary home defense weapon may be loaded, and the other two must remain unloaded. (You do not have to register which is primary, but if for any reason law enforcement ever has need to be involved in your affairs, more than one of your home defense weapons being loaded at a time is an offense.) Weapons registered for home defense can only be transported unloaded.

A personal defense license entitles you to carry a pistol for personal defense, concealed. To receive this class of self defense license you must complete an interview with a member of local law enforcement who must sign off on you being issued a Personal Defense Learner License holder, you can only complete this step if you already hold a general class Self Defense License or a Target Shooter License. With a Learner License you can then enroll in a Federally accredited, 80 hour program that will train you on marksmanship, firearms use, proper usage of a firearm in self defense and etc. At the end, you must pass a Federally developed, privately administered exam similar to a final firearms qualifying exam in a police academy or similar. To maintain this license you have to take a refresher exam every year and pass, and take 18 hours of continuing education every 2 years. (If you fail a refresher exam, you must take the 18 hours in that same year and retake the exam. Failing the exam twice in one year results in your license being suspended and requires retaking all original licensing education.)

Once you have a Personal Defense License, you may carry a concealed firearm anywhere that accommodates the public, aside from government facilities where it is prohibited, large venues (1,000+ plus) where the owner’s prohibit it, or any private facility involved in the education or care of children where it is prohibited.

No local or State law can impose stricter limitations on where you may carry. Further, no privately owned business that accommodates the public can restrict or prohibit concealed carry.

Concealed carry holders, while carrying, are not to consume any alcoholic beverages. If they are ever found to have a BAC above 0.02 they lose their license permanently, along with all other firearm licenses they have and are permanently barred from owning any firearms. All existing firearms they own must be surrendered or rendered permanently inoperable. Further, the offense itself would constitute a felony carrying a minimum one year sentence incarceration.

Collector’s License - This would be the most permissive license, and would partially repeal several existing firearms laws (including 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA and 1986 FOPA.) This would basically allow ownership of any weapons money could buy, aside from weapons classified as military explosives and etc. Newly manufactured automatic weapons could be sold to holders of this license (thus overturning the 1986 FOPA), additionally holders of this license would enjoy rights and privileges equivalent to an FFL holder in terms of being able to receive and transfer weapons.

Only collectors can buy things like fully automatic weapons. Any weapon registered under a collector’s license may be put on display, unloaded and rendered partially inoperable (ex. removal of firing pin in weapons with a firing pin.)

Collectors would be required to store any ammunition associated with their weapons in a locked, secured safe or other approved container. Collectors can fire their weapons on private property or at target ranges only, and must transport them unloaded.

Anyone applying for a collector’s license must have held a Target Shooter License for a period of 5 years prior to making said application. Additionally, they must have five written references from non-family members attesting their good character. They must have a complete mental health assessment completed in the prior 12 months. They must submit to an interview by a local law enforcement officer who will note if they have any reason to deny the license. If they do, the LEO must state the reason and that reason can be appealed. They must pass a 40 hour course on proper storage and safety of a large firearm collection and pass an 120 hour firearms course with at least 20 hours pertaining to automatic weapons.

With all of those requirements complete, they can send their finalized application along with a fee of $5,000 to the ATF. The ATF will then conduct a personal background check and may interview any of the character references and anyone else they discover through those references. The ATF will also conduct a personal interview with the applicant
So then a simple general licensing run down would be:

Hunter License - Allows registration of long guns with magazines of 8 or fewer. Only allows carrying loaded weapons while hunting. Cannot store these weapons loaded in the home.

Target Shooter License - Allows registration of essentially any semiautomatic weapon with up to a 30 round magazine. Has strict licensing requirement, including a prior six month history of target shooting as ascertained by a licensed instructor. Said instructor also must affirm they have no reason to think you should not have said license. This license allows for shooting on private property or ranges only, and any weapons registered under it cannot be transported loaded or stored loaded. Additionally, this license entitles law enforcement to periodically inspect your storage of weapons.

Self Defense License - Home defense license allows shotguns and pistols to be registered for home defense, but there are storage requirements and these weapons cannot be taken loaded out of the home except for target shooting. Personal Defense License allows concealed carry of pistols but carries rigorous licensing requirements.

Collector’s License - Allows home ownership of essentially any weapon money can buy, but with strict requirements. Has the strictest licensing.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Iggy

So if the naughty guns list bans the ManKiller™ MX-7 then the gun manufacturer would just roll out a new model, the ManKiller™ MX-8 (now with a smoother action!) that is not on the list.

Sure, but firearms aren’t penis enlargement pills; the number actually on the market at any given time is fairly limited.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@Iggy

I agree that arbitrary prohibitions are met with a quick sidestep. It was the first thing I thought of when I read the idea of a banned gun models list.

As did I, although I would hope that the prohibited guns aren’t chosen arbitrarily, but based upon specific criteria. To make sense, the proposed law should take this into account, and be changed appropriately to ban the manufacture of guns that violate the chosen criteria.

[Furious_Marmot]

@Martin_Hyde

…
Hunter Firearm License … any firearm licensed to you under this license cannot be used for self-defense…

Target Shooter License … Guns registered under one of these licenses cannot be used for self-defense…

If you have the bunting or target license and someone breaks into your house, you cannot unlock the safe, load the gun and shoot the intruder, right? Can you club him with the gun?

[Martin_Hyde]

Additionally under my regime, you basically get three strikes in violating those rules. A violation is basically improper storage, using a gun contrary to its license (for example if you have a target shooter license but not a home defense license, and you are storing your target weapon loaded at home), or etc. Three violations and you lose all licenses and must surrender all registered weapons or render them permanently inoperable. You are banned for life from firearms ownership or possession.

Said violations aren’t crimes in themselves, but are just violations of the act. This would mostly be minor stuff, like improper storage and etc.

Some crimes would constitute a “major” violation in addition to being an illegal act, and would result in immediate revocation of all licenses for life, and surrendering/rendering inoperable of all weapons. An example of a major violation would be loaning your weapon to someone else, not reporting your weapon being stolen, carrying concealed without license. Further, basically any crime where you use a gun gets you the “lifetime punishment” whether the crime is a felony or not (most gun crimes are felonies anyway.)

I would allow for the following grandfather provisions:

1. All currently owned weapons can be kept regardless. However, they must all be registered. If you do not acquire any of the specific types of license then you will be prohibited from purchasing ammunition of any kind or firing the weapons even on private property. Basically you can keep them unlicensed as long as you buy no new ammunition and don’t shoot them.

2. If you currently own weapons, and do not want to pursue any of the four new license types, you can get a “Private Shooter License” which is only available to people who already legally own guns prior to this law. The private shooter license has the general requirements that you must complete before applying for any of the four specific license types, but no other requirements. It entitles you to buy ammunition for any gun you currently own and allows you to shoot your weapons on private property only.

3. If you currently or have in the last five years had an active hunting license, you can be granting a Hunter Firearm License immediately, with no further requirements. However hunting firearms that you use must still meet all the same requirements of the new law, and they must be specifically registered to your hunter license just like for any other hunter.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Furious_Marmot

If you have the bunting or target license and someone breaks into your house, you cannot unlock the safe, load the gun and shoot the intruder, right? Can you club him with the gun?

No. You’d be advised not to try opening the gun safe at all, to flee for safety or use a non-firearm self defense tool (TASER, pepper spray etc.) You can pursue a self defense license if it’s important to you.

[China_Guy]

Well, would it be more palatable to the pro-gun folks to make it a six round limit? I mean if 10 won’t really solve the problem, why not cut it down to 6? Would that help?

I really don’t understand where guns need to be one of the *potentially * most harmful yet least regulated things around. I just re-read the second amendment and I while I caught the part about a “well regulated militia” but missed the section where it spells out in black and white that the government can never ever even think about registration for legitimate gun owners. Help me out here.

[XT]

@Martin_Hyde

No. You’d be advised not to try opening the gun safe at all, to flee for safety or use a non-firearm self defense tool (TASER, pepper spray etc.) You can pursue a self defense license if it’s important to you.

Well, sure hope my wife and kids would be safe then. I suppose it’s just and meet that the robber should have free run of my stuff, since it’s really not important or anything. I mean, if they have gone to all the trouble to break into my house why should they not have free run of the stuff that’s there, right?

Generally I think you are a pretty reasonable poster, but this is pretty ridiculous. A license that only allows me to target shoot with a weapon, or only hunt? That’s pretty silly, to be honest. And you’d need a license to defend your own home from an intruder?? If not, then you have to flee 'cause you wouldn’t want to hurt someone breaking into your house???

[Furious_Marmot]

@Martin_Hyde

No. You’d be advised not to try opening the gun safe at all, to flee for safety or use a non-firearm self defense tool (TASER, pepper spray etc.) You can pursue a self defense license if it’s important to you.

Is that “advised not to” in the sense of “a lawyer would advise against that because of its illegality” or in the sense of “it would be inadvisable because you are better off fleeing instead of wasting time opening a safe”?