Keep in mind I would ONLY support the first three proposals I made if and ONLY if they were accompanied by the second two, and I also like the following suggestions:
I would add another concession to the pro-gun side: the ability to order ANY kind of firearm online, not just Curio and Relic firearms, and have it delivered directly without having to go through an FFL. This would be accomplished by the creation of some kind of efficient and easily accessible online system to clear the buyer with the BATFE, using whatever background info and certification of safety that the individual has on file.
No Dice. I don’t see your proposals doing much other than hassling the law-abiding while making it insanely easier for assault weapons to find their way to the street. I’ve long been in favor of both a license and registry for firearms. Preferably one based upon certain levels that divide up owners by type and number of firearms. In addition I would support legislation that would punish negligent owners who are the victims of unreported firearm thefts where the stolen weapons were eventually used in a crime. Here is what I would propose as a compromise instead.
All levels: Safety class and written test. Background check. Registration of weapon. Note that these are per person of legal age, not per household.
L1 : Basic owner: Covers no more than two handguns and three, (of any combination) of the following: Rifles, shotguns, blackpowder, working historical replicas. Cost: 50.00 (one time)
L2: Hunter/ hobbyist: Covers up to 10 handguns and 10, (of any combination) of the following: Rifles, shotguns, blackpowder, working historical replicas, “assault” type weapons, military surplus types. Cost 150.00 annually. or a one time fee of 1000.00 good for life or until revoked due to criminal conviction.
L3: Dealer/ collector: Covers unlimited amounts of any combination of firearm. Collectors not registered as firearm dealers must register their collection with the local police department. Collection is subject to inspection with warrant in the event that theft is suspect. Permit does NOT cover explosives, grenades, bomb making materials etc. Cost 500.00 Annually, or one time fee of 5000.00 good for life, or until revoked due to criminal conviction.
In return for these regulations, I would offer that your license is good for full concealed carry, and that restrictions on any weapon type be abolished.
How do you stop a crazy person/criminal from driving a car without a license/insurance? You can’t? Well, I suppose we don’t actually need licenses at all!
If they want to legally purchase a handgun or rifle, yes.
The goal here isn’t to singularly prevent crime, it’s to create responsible gun owners who will know their firearm laws, how to safely handle/store their firearm, and where they can safely/legally fire their firearms, all part of the class and prevent crime if possible.
You could easily combine the psych eval and the class itself by simply giving the teachers lists of warning signs, and those who exhibit them are referred for an actual exam. Similar, although not the same exactly as the flight instructor who had the student who ONLY wanted to learn to fly the plane, not take off or land.
At least try to be civil.
I would make that a separate thing that required registration with your local post office, that you have a photo ID on file, and that you, personally, must sign for the package, you may not employ or request an agent to do so on your behalf.
So how would your proposed ‘gun show loophole closure’ affect private, person to person gun sales and gifts?
I buy a shotgun off Bill, because Bill bought a fancier one. What would I have to do?
Dad thinks my Mossberg is just the ticket for home defense. I sigh and give it to him, free of charge. What would I have to do?
What is your end goal of registering every weapon in the US? 300,000,000+ get registered overnight. What changes tomorrow, other than every LEO knowing exactly who owns what for when the next Katrina, or other “emergency” rolls through town?
I’m troubled to say it, but this time Canada’s a cautionary example. Our national firearms registry is absurdly expensive and the benefits are debatable, at best.
If your firearm is stolen, you did not secure it well enough. Leave it on the front porch if you wish, but you accept the risk of prosecution if someone takes it and commits a crime. Those who want to reduce their liability will take stronger measures to secure their weapons. That’s what being a responsible gun owner is.
All the reasons you list here are exactly why I don’t want to have mandatory classes. I think training is an excellent idea, but I also think any responsible citizen would do so anyway, and it would probably do little or no good for any irresponsible individual. The care license is actually a good example of how little good it does, because I’ve known people who don’t have licenses and drive safely, and yet there’s also countless examples of licensed people who regularly cause fatal crashes.
I’m also not really sure what exactly is involved in a gun safety certification. It only really takes about 10 minutes to learn how to handle a gun safely; it doesn’t take a genius to know not to point it at people. Should people also be required to pass proficiency tests? If so, do they need to pass one with each type of weapon they intend to purchase?
Most importantly, what does any of this do to stop criminals and crazy people from purchasing weapons illegally? The guy who is jumping through the hoops to pass these tests probably already isn’t going to go on a shooting rampage.
First off, many states already have a system in place like this, where one can get a background check in a matter of minutes. The bigger problem is, a lot of these “gunshow loophole” sales are between private individuals. I don’t have so much of an issue if it’s quick and free; however, it’s something that should be implemented at the state level and shouldn’t be used in a way to track purchases.
[quote]
Third: I don’t have a problem with there being a mandatory waiting period for handgun purchases. …
[quote]
Waiting periods and limitations on purchases are just ridiculous and serve no purpose but to inconvenience legal gun owners. As a real life example, I know someone who received a gun as a Christmas gift from a friend, then earlier this month saw a gun he liked, but couldn’t purchase it because of the 1 gun per month rule here. Nevermind that if he were going to go on a shooting rampage, he’d only need one gun anyway, it inconvenienced him.
Similarly, for a waiting period, if someone is planning to do some kind of shooting massacre, well, they just need to buy their gun a week ahead of time instead of the day before. I guess one could argue that it keeps someone from suddenly snapping, buying a gun, and then going on a rampage, but if you look at a lot these sorts of examples, they tend to be planned out, and even if they are rather sudden, the rules are easily circumvented.
These need to be removed because, as you say, they serve no purpose. So called “assault weapons” have been used in but a very tiny fraction of crimes, and its the sort of legislation that gets passed to placate the anti-gun crowd, but doesn’t have any meaningful effect.
Instead, I’m much more interested in seeing more states recognize other states’ CCW permits. Actually, I’d really prefer that concealed carry didn’t require a permit at all, but I know that won’t fly in most states.
To answer the OP’s question: No, there is no compromise, because any compromise involving the only amendment that really matters is the first step in an evil librul plot to make us an evil Communist nation.
What part of the constitution prevents the government from knowing which books you read or websites you visit, and how are you injured by the government knowing?
There’s a pretty concrete history around the world of registration schemes eventually leading to confiscation.
No part (cite: the PATRIOT Act), and we aren’t injured by the per se knowledge. I personally don’t care. I’m not doing anything illegal, so I’ve got nothing to hide.
We have a Second Amendment here. “Confiscation” is neither legally possible nor logistically feasible. The very idea is too asinine even to discuss.
I guess a well regulated militia is best regulated by a government that has absolutely no idea what is going on.
I’m not familiar with the ins and outs of the gun laws being discussed here, but I don’t see this compromise helping. It has one of the features of a good compromise (nobody likes it ;)) but it doesn’t do anything about the actual problem it’s supposed to address. Loughner was nuts but was not diagnosed with any mental illness that we know of. It sounds like Arizona’s laws on involuntary confinement are not that much of an obstacle, so if someone had either bothered to get involved or taken their blinders off and realized he was really crazy, he might have been treated. I think almost everybody can agree that people who are insane shouldn’t be able to get weapons. Background checks are already supposed to take care of that, but they don’t work completely because the federal government can’t make the states turn over their information. So some of them comply - it’s better than it was before Virginia Tech - and some of them don’t. The problem there is pretty obvious and it applies to criminals and not just people who are mentally ill. And yes, the gun show loophole is a ridiculous one and it takes a lot of any law designed to keep guns away from someone who is likely to use them on innocent people. The license idea doesn’t bother me but I don’t think it would do anything, especially not in the instance of a potential mass shooter.