I’m sure he’s already got one. Rifled, I imagine.
As I recall, Chuck Norris fought off the commies without needing any guns. I might be thinking of *Invasion USA *though.
The late Patrick Swayze, I believe.
I was kind of interested in your topic until I ran into the impenetrable jargon. Even academics writing papers for fellow experts are courteous enough to spell out acronyms the first time they’re used.
DROS: Dealer’s Record of Sale
PPT: Private Party Transfer
FFL: Federal Firearms License(holder)
It’s a gun control thread for pro-gun activists. The OP is writing for people who already know what this stuff means.
What I would accept as reasonable regulations:
Improving the National Background check system.
Requiring all firearms transfers to go to through the system.
I do NOT believe in waiting periods. I believe (with zero cite) that they serve to slow down people in need far more than they slow down someone who is angry. I am open to evidence to the contrary, however.
Large purchases in a single period triggering an investigation. My dad bought 4 rifles recently, one for himself and the rest for his sons. That should be fine, but if someone from the local sheriff’s office wants to call him and ask why - he can provide an answer.
A training requirement could work - as long as there are sufficient classes available to anyone who needs to take it. California requires drivers training to get a license (or at least my kid had to take it). Luckily that training is available from a ton of people, and was easy to get. It DOES add a cost - so requiring an additional payment to exercise your right could be problematic. It should not be so much of a cost that we effectively outlaw firearms for the poor.
Cory Booker’s three pragmatic recommendations work for me, for the most part:
Apologies, it was targeted at folks who understood the terminology. RNATB has it right.
When you purchase a firearm, you are required to fill out the DROS paperwork. This is where you state your history, if you are on drugs, a felon, etc. The information is used to perform the instant background check. I believe the fee is fixed nation wide, but I’m not sure. In CA it’s about $25. You can purchase any number of guns under the same DROS paperwork unless there are other restrictions imposed by the state or other municipalities. In CA I think you are limited to one pistol in any 30 day period (which is pretty stupid).
When you purchase firearms, you do it from a dealer (FFL), or a private party (think: garage sale). The rules for dealer sales are different for private party sales in much of the country (CA there is no difference). There are many rules that govern PPT sales, however there’s virtually no enforcement so it’s really an honor system.
Maybe. Can you or anyone else present evidence that any of your proposed approaches have been shown to be beneficial? No appeals to common sense allowed. By asking this question I’m not implying that there is no such evidence, but all of these things have certainly been tried before somewhere in the US and elsewhere. There are a lot of feel-good, knee-jerk proposals out there in an effort to do something, but I don’t think anything should be implemented in response to fear or ignorance, particularly if it has not been proven to have any real beneficial effect.
How could it not effectively outlaw firearms for the poor?
Training could be provided for free by advocacy groups in the classroom and at the range. It could be provided by the sheriff for free once a month at the range and in the classroom. Teaching gun safety is not difficult.
I think it’s a given that felons and mentally adjudicated individuals should not possess firearms. Increasing the utilization of background checks specifically designed to detect these things would have the benefit of restricting access for those individuals. The fact that NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) flags certain purchasers as prohibited each year speaks to its efficacy.
As for training - Is there evidence that more training in both safety (including storage) as well as marksmanship will decrease gun violence? I’m not aware of a study that would show this, but I’d be hard pressed to argue against training, especially given that if you receive such training you’d have universal shall issue.
What about transportation to the training facility?
(I’m echoing voter-ID concerns here.)
In Texas, there is a waiver of the full fee for a Concealed Hangun License for the indigent.
I agree with most of what has been said here regarding what restrictions there should be. I would add that it should be illegal to consume alcohol when carrying.
For those of you who say that people who oppose gun control are just falling back on a tired slippery slope argument, would you say that you are opposed to banning guns?
Rob
Does California require driver training to buy or possess a car, I’m pretty sure they don’t.
I understand the line of thinking, I just think it’s dumb. If you can’t get yourself to the range to practice, or can’t figure out how to take a bus or walk, I’m just not that concerned anyways. It’s unlikely you’d be able to afford the cost of a firearm or its ammunition, let alone practice. I don’t think these minor costs substantially burden the right.
$25 fee for filing, class can be taught by any NRA instructor or equivalent.
Nope - but you cut the reason I brought that up. My point was that getting driver training was not overly difficult - there were many available instructors.
Compare this to Washington DC that has a training requirement, but where the training is very hard to get done. They have created hoops that can be very difficult to get through, none of which serve any sort of safety purpose.
Or Chicago, where after they lost Mcdonald they responded by allowing gun ownership only after you passed range safety courses - then prohibited all ranges.
I would support the requirement and ability to use the instant background check (IBC) system for private sales, closing the “gun show loophole”. (scare quotes because it was debated in congress and intentional that private sales would have no IBC)
Seller and buyer would show up at a police station, the buyer would fill out the paperwork, the police would call it in. They would then either OK the sale, or arrest either the buyer, the seller, or both, depending on which was prohibited from owning a gun. I would support something like that for current dealers. The buyer takes the form to the police station and either issue an approval code (which the dealer verifies by phone when the customer returns to pay for and pick up his gun) or they arrest the buyer on the spot.
I would support training requirements. When I was a teen, Colorado required me to take a hunter’s safety course before I could go deer hunting with my dad. It was useful, and I was glad that all the people out in the woods had to take it. I later moved to a state without that requirement, and it shows.
I would support enforcement and prosecution of existing gun laws. Today if a felon attempts to purchase a gun, and fails the IBC, it is exceedingly rare that they are prosecuted.
I would not support waiting periods. Before/While they were getting the instant-check system up and running it used to take a week or so to run background checks. Crime didn’t drop during that time, and it didn’t pick up once the IBC was working. It is a burden on dealers who now have inventory tied up an additional N days.
Not to hijack, but the concern about the voter ID was that one side of the political spectrum got an advantage with the disenfranchisement of the other side, and that it may lead to additional expense over what should otherwise require no money. In the case of guns, there isn’t the same political interest in suppressing gun ownership among a particular minority. And purchasing a gun already requires an investment of capital, unless you want to claim that the 2nd amendment guarantees that the government provides a gun to anyone who wants one free of charge.
I might be OK with it if there was an absolute ironclad guarantee that no future government will come take all our guns, or that no foreign power will ever invade, but we can’t be sure of that. I got accused of wearing a tinfoil hat when I brought this up in antother thread, and maybe there’s no good reason not to now, biut a lot can change politically in 25, 50, 100 years and once you have a database it’s a lot simpler to start seizing weapons, whether our government or an invader. This in addition to the already mentioned slipperly slope argument. I think cases of “there’s a gun with number 123-456-789 smoking lying next to the body, let’s look up the owner” are actually fairly rare (and would be even rarer if the perp knew the SN was linked to him", so the modest crime fighting benefits now don’t outweigh the potential serious future implications