Some of you will be caught and prosecuted. Some of you will die of unrelated causes, and your heirs will register the guns. Some of you will want to sell the guns, and they will be registered. And yes, some of you will illegally sell your guns to other felons. That’s why i think it will take more than a decade to significantly help. But we need to start somewhere.
It will if you go to jail for not registering, like other criminals, and get put on a list of criminals who no longer get to own guns ever, and have your precious guns seized and destroyed instead of getting to hand them over to your children.
Since no one is proposing gun registration, and it is totally impractical anyway, let us get back to the proposed laws?
The Red flag laws can be a good idea, IF, as the ACLU insist, they have Due Process.
Red flag laws also routinely violate the 5th and 6th Amendment and you seem to have no problem with that.
Here is a good breakdown of what is in the deal and what is not-
Clarifying the definition of a Federally Licensed Firearm Dealer may be the most effective provision, but the actual language and its effects have not yet been finalized.
Nothing in the deal is bad, and everything should pass Constitutional Muster.
Expanded background checks is the worst exclusion.
Higher minimum age of purchase would have faced Court challenges.
‘Red flag’ laws here the devil is in the details. Any such law must pass the ACLUs guidelines for Due Process.
That looks reasonable to me.
Though at this stage of my life, I wish there was a fair-market-value buy-back program.
I’d settle for an 80% buy back based on a reasonable neutral point, say 4 years ago (picking a non-election year to be fairish).
-looks at safe 3/4 full of FiL’s guns on perpetual loan that have never been fired with more on the way in 10ish years-
Yeah, I’d support that.
The way it is now, you lose at least 50%, maybe nearly all of the FMV.
At least in Illinois, even a voluntary psychiatric hospitalization renders you forever ineligible to own guns. Although I’m generally in favor of anything that makes it harder for anyone to get guns, I’m uncomfortable with this law as it could discourage people from seeking help.
You’re the one who suggested locking people up as preferable to impounding guns.
It was more of a question. If a person has shown significant signs of being a harm to their self or others how is removing one tool from their possession yet leaving them free to use any of the other zillion tools available a solution? Either a person is inherently dangerous or they are not. How does removing one inanimate object nullify that?
It doesn’t change the person being dangerous but it does reduce the harm they can cause.
Guns are better at killing people than other tools. A lot better. The next tool on the list of available weapons is an order of magnitude less effective at killing people than a pistol or a rifle.
You’re taking away a 21st century weapon, the best hand held weapon ever devised by humanity, and leaving these dangerous people with what, a club? a knife? something comparable to what humans were using in prehistoric times?
It is curious how this is absolutely true when talking about self defense, then only a gun will do, but completely wrong when it comes to bad folks with bad intent, then all weapons are equally effective.
It’s like they’re some sort of Chekhov’s Gun Schrödinger’s Pistol.
I agree. This is why it’s so important to think of the American gun deaths as a public health issue. Nobody ever says there’s no point in researching a cure for cancer since it might take years or decades. Nobody ever tells an obese person that if they can’t drop a hundred pounds in a month they might as well not bother.
And yet a lot of gun proposals are dismissed because they won’t fix the problem immediately, but I think that’s because it’s a convenient strawman. It took decades of lies and fearmongering and lobbying to get us to where we are. It’ll take decades more to fix things. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t start.
Not to mention accidents and suicides.
It’s pretty nearly impossible to accidentally kill someone with a knife. I mean, I could make up a situation where you could do it, but it would be a contrived situation – it’s not a real problem, despite the widespread availability of knives that are easily capable of cutting flesh. Whereas tons of people are killed in gun accidents in the US every year.
And suicides – most suicides are “crimes of passion”, and if it’s hard to actually implement the suicide, the passion wanes and the person survives. In particular, most of the suicides that are truly regrettable are committed in momentary passion. The sick old person who has felt miserable for ages and sees more pain in their future and wants to end it now is not the suicide we most want to prevent.
If guns are just basic tools, indistinguishable from any of the other “zillion” tools out there, why do they need any special protection? We don’t have an amendment granting us the right to use screwdrivers.
The point is that the person hasn’t been shown to be a danger to themselves or others; they have only had an allegation made against them. At some point in the near future there will be a court hearing to examine the truth of those allegations. IMO the need to protect the public justifies the minor violation of rights involved in temporarily removing the guns pending that hearing. I don’t think anyone would think it’s reasonable to actually incarcerate someone even briefly based just on someone else’s unsubstantiated claim that he might be up to something. (Of course I can imagine specific situations where that might be justified, but nobody would advocate establishing a general rule of jailing everyone who has any complaint lodged against them, prior to beginning any investigation)
That’s an excellent point, a criminal can massacre dozens with scrounged up weapons while a law abiding homeowner can’t effectively defend his house with a double barreled shotgun.
So it’s ok to confiscate someones property over unsubstantiated claims?
How about not doing anything until any claim is actually proven?
Or would that be too easy to point out how rife with abuse red flag laws could be?