One thing that gets less attention is that many laws surrounding firearms in the US are at the state level. What may be permissible in one state is prohibited in others. I’m from CA where we have fairly restrictive laws, most of which are convoluted. I’m an ardent gun rights supporter. The increase in individual liberty is sufficient to overcome nearly any claim of increased safety on behalf of gun regulations. I support more permissive gun laws in nearly every possible way. However, I do think there are things that we can do that would be reasonable. Here’s are 3 that I would support at a national level:
All sales of firearms subject to a 10 day waiting period and must go through an FFL. This is how CA currently is even for private party sales. If I want to purchase private party, we meet at an FFL. I fill out the DROS paperwork and pay the PPT fee (which is fixed by state law, and all FFLs are mandated to perform PPTs). Then I pay the other individual and his part of the transaction is done. The FFL takes possession of the firearm, does the background check, etc. 10 days later I return to the FFL and take possession of the firearm.
It surely is an inconvenience. I need to make two trips to an FFL to buy a single gun. If the buyer and seller live far apart, organizing the sale is much more difficult. FFLs are forced to conduct business that is of very little no profit and they take up storage on your behalf. The benefit is that this would strengthen the background check and ensure that all legal purchasers submit to them. This would go hand in hand with the next item.
Connect mental health records and criminal databases with background checks. Right now privacy protections, lack of system infrastructure, and lack of reporting make mental health records unavailable when doing background checks. Re-draft HIPPA so that these records could be shared for this purpose. This would have to be done with finesse however. A person should not be prohibited based on the suspicion or action of a single health care provider. They would have to actually be mentally adjudicated or some other bright line distinction that is reviewable, and contestable. I’m not optimistic about this being possible given how crappy things like the no fly list are managed and how easy it is to become a prohibited person from false domestic violence claims, but if the proper safeguards are in place, there is no reason to argue against this. That’s a really big IF.
Increase the training requirement for ownership of firearms. Both safety and marksmanship. I know of no gun owner (personal experience) who doesn’t treat their firearms with respect and an overwhelming concern for safety. Education at the front end (not for every purchase, but for first time purchasers and perhaps a periodic continuing education refreshers) could go a long way to making sure owners at least know how to be responsible. Marksmanship requirement could be high – very high, but no higher than the police. The caveat to this is that if people go through this heightened scrutiny, they should be permitted to carry nearly everywhere, including schools. Pass these requirements and then you are treated as ‘shall issue’.
Things I would not support:
[ul]
[li]Requiring certain storage of firearms. Anything that limits a person in a defensive situation is a non starter.[/li][li]Magazine size limits – there are times larger magazines can aid in defense and really, there is no efficacy in limiting the size[/li][li]Ammo registration – what’s the point?[/li][li]‘Assault weapon’ bans or any ban of any kind[/li][/ul]
I’d like to know how other gun rights supporters feel about the 3 items above. Gun control advocates are pushing to do something, where I think gun rights advocates should push to only do what can have a real benefit.
I’m not a strong advocate but I’ll weigh in because it’s the internet and I have an opinion.
Your #3: “Increase the training requirement for ownership of firearms” is the direction I’d like things to go. You should need a license, including training, to be able to buy or possess a gun. Just like a car. And, like a car, the government shouldn’t care what gun you buy once you have the license, within broad categories of course. I’ve been shooting with a number of friends who are gung-ho about guns and invite non-gun people to go along. A great educational experience for people who have never touched a gun. My first question is always “has everyone been trained” because I don’t want to be around some yahoo who thinks waving around a weapon like they saw on TV is a good idea. I think a lot of gun users don’t realize how many people don’t have the first clue about basic gun safety. Far too many people get their ideas about how guns work, what they are for and how to use them from TV and movies and some of that stuff can be slightly inaccurate, believe it or not.
I have no opposition, in principle, to licensing and training requirements. If prospective gun owners had to submit to a bit of legal scrutiny and take the time and effort to be trained and responsible, it would probably 1) gradually reduce the number of guns floating around in general circulation without actually preventing any responsible, lawful person from getting one, and 2) increase the average competency of firearms owners. I see both of these things as ultimately good – people too lazy, selfish, or incompetent to go through training just should not own guns, and the licensing requirements would very likely reduce the first-wave availability of handguns to the criminal elements.
I’d even be okay with the requirements for handguns being a bit more strict than for rifles, considering that handguns are easily concealed and trafficked, that the use of handguns requires greater skill, and that handguns are already so disproportionately represented in homicide statistics.
However, you will have a hard time getting me to actually vote for such measures in the current climate because of the likelihood that these concessions would be used as a stepping stone for further restrictions. Add to that the fact that reducing gun ownership might also reduce the pro-2A voting base. It’s all politics, and in the presence of extremists who would love to see all guns banned for everybody, even the gun control measures I would like to take are risky.
Things I am not okay with include bans on certain classes of firearms, magazine size restrictions, or silly regulation of cosmetic features like grip shapes, bayonet mounts, and grenade launchers.
I also don’t approve of any requirement to demonstrate “need” or otherwise justify one’s desire to obtain a firearm. If there is to be firearms licensing it should be on a “shall-issue” basis: you’re only denied on the basis of objective disqualifying criteria, like violent felony convictions, a history of mental health problems, or failing the training.
Things I would not support:
[LIST]
[li]Requiring certain storage of firearms. Anything that limits a person in a defensive situation is a non starter.[/li][/QUOTE]
What’s the point of any of this other stuff if Bone Jr. can take a gun off your nightstand?
For CA - In most cases, if you keep any loaded firearm within any premise which is under your custody or control and know or reasonably should know that a child (person under 18 years of age) is likely to gain access to the firearm, you may be guilty of a felony if a child gains access to that firearm and thereby causes death or injury to any person unless the firearm was in a secure locked container or locked with a locking device that rendered it inoperable.
CA does not however, require that all firearms be trigger locked or in a locked container. The point is that people who are properly trained and have children should be responsible for themselves and their children and take what steps they deem appropriate.
The focus should be on the people themselves, not the guns. It’s not a stretch to say that most parents want what’s best for their children. Focus on educating the people and they will choose what’s best and that could include locking up firearms when kids are younger and making them available for emergencies when they are older. There are instances of minor children defending their home by using the firearm owned by their parents.
Okay. Now what about when Bone Jr. is grown up and a paranoid schizophrenic*, and takes the gun off your nightstand and shoots up an elementary school?
*I don’t know if you have kids and I am not implying that I hope this happens, of course.
So you’re saying, what if an adult person steals a firearm and commits crimes? I can not think of any way to limit that without unacceptable infringement on a person’s ability to defend themselves.
Requiring all firearms to be locked away means they are not as accessible should the need arise in a hurry. There are options for quick release lockboxes for pistols and long guns (requiring either a button pattern combination or biometric match), however these are a compromise as they increase the time it takes to access the firearm (which I would recommend to anyone with children in the house, either as residents or guests) and can be expensive.
I respect your position, but can you understand how this “give 'em an inch and they’ll take a mile” attitude could make some on the gun-control side think that you really aren’t in favor of these requirements?
This, IMO, seems to be the problem with the gun-control debate; the pro-gun side will happily talk about all sorts of possible gun restrictions (well, not NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre, who’s press conference today was a ridiculous side-show), but once these gain any kind of political traction there’s always some new reason why they won’t support it. It makes me think they really don’t see any problem here at all, but are just entertaining the debate in the hopes it will peter out once the media finds the next shiny object.
I think the licensing requirement wouldn’t stand up in court. If you have a right to own a gun unless the licensing process is pro forma then it would seem to violate that right. And if it were pro forma what’s the point? Unless I’m missing something…
Well, in fairness I’m not up in arms (heh) about the status quo. The fear of becoming a gun homicide statistic ranks on my “list of things that actually worry me on a daily basis” somewhere below the fear that the hacks at Chipotle will wrap my burrito all wrong so the guacamole and sour cream squirt out the side.
However, I really do think the things I mentioned could be an improvement, and, together with other social changes, could significantly reduce our violent crime rate. If such a measure were proposed, and I could somehow be assured that it wouldn’t be a platform for bans or discrimination, then I’d support it, looking forward to being one of the inaugural members of a saner, more responsible American gun-owning public.
Quite possible. I’m just saying that I consider licensing to be acceptable in principle, not that it would necessarily pass constitutional muster.
I knew someone would get me on that little detail. Maybe I should have said “sort of like driving a car.” Although, I seem to remember being required to show a vaild drivers license the last time I bought a car. I suppose it is possible to buy a car and just leave it at the dealer.
I’d have absolutely zero restriction on arms. I would have quite a few more checks in place to see who could purchase. Probably even re-institute a waiting period, for all weapons.
I’m one of the most vocal gun supporters around, but I’d be fine with those restrictions if there was some guarantee that the anti-gun people would not use that as a slipperly slope to ask for even more, and if training records, transfers and whatnot do not permanently link a particular serial number to a particular person.
Maybe some do, certainly when you start advocating any restrictions you will get people who are willing to fight tooth and nail against ANY because they see it as a slippery slope argument.
Kind of like John Mace already spoke about, if you are already constitutionally protected why give any of it up?
