Hi all. I would like to get some feedback on this idea from people who are knowledgeable on firearms. My idea for a gun control compromise is this:
Place all semiautomatic firearms (long guns and handguns) greater than .22 LR in caliber, with detachable magazines, in a more restricted class of firearms. This would not be a ban. Rather, to obtain a firearm in this category, you would have to jump through some extra hoops. I envision it as similar to the process of obtaining a curio and relic (C&R) license, or maybe, building an SBR (short barrel rifle). You’d have to notify the local sheriff, get fingerprinted, pay $200. The specific details could be changed, obviously. Have the minimum age for ownership be 21. It would be a situation where the authorities would have to take a second look at you, but not an extreme burden.
This would avoid going down the rabbit hole of trying to ban specific models, cosmetic features, or magazine capacities.
Your old SKS rifle with a non-detachable magazine wouldn’t be affected. Neither would the family heirloom M1 Garand. Revolvers would of course not be affected either.
A compromise would mean that both sides get something. What I would offer to those concerned with gun ownership rights being eroded:
End all import bans on guns from Russia, etc.
Nationwide concealed-carry reciprocity.
Open up the NFA registry to full-auto firearms made after 1986 (the other requirements would remain for full-auto).
Allow short barrel shotguns. Allow suppressors (silencers).
What do you think? This would not, of course, stop every rampage, and you could game the system, but I think it would be a significant improvement.
I’d probably be onboard with that trade (assuming we could get the ATF’s processing time down to a reasonable time period), but this line (quoted above) seems wrong. Why would an M1 Garand not be in your new restricted class of firearms? It’s semi-auto, >.22LR, and uses en bloc clips (in my eyes functionally the same as a detachable box magazine)? If your answer is that clips are different than magazines then, 1) good on you for knowing the difference, and 2) I see a revitalization of clip-loading firearms hitting the market shortly after this bill passes.
Today they’ve got criteria for when to say ‘no’. It’s not an arbitrary judgement call by whatever ATF employee is reviewing your SBR license application. If the background check comes back without issue, and the check clears, you’re basically good to go.
Post Heller decision, this type of rule wouldn’t pass muster because it would impact the “the inherent right of self-defense”
And it would have to be a far more narrow ban, because Machines guns, SBR’s etc… are considered non-firearms under the law, but some categories like the SBR could probably fall under a well funded court case (unlikely to happen). But I would be willing to bet that the ATF hasn’t increased the tax on NFA weapons in part to avoid scrutiny of the law.
So really I doubt that a NFA style change categorization would work, as there would need to be evidence that the firearms you are restricting are not good for self defense, which would fail with the “greater than .22 LR in caliber” claim above. Really any meaningful action will require a replacement for the 2nd amendment, or a modification to the 14th. These licences would need to be granted, and could only be denied through “Due Process”. Without major changes, and due to current case law I think any law will be limited to cosmetic prohibitions like the AWB.
Okay, I’ve seen this “compromise” point here a few times, always in the context of “Well, what do we gun owners get?”
Well, you get the same benefit that non-gun owners get: a reduction in the number of mass shootings, and other types of shootings, targeting innocent people.
It’s telling that they never seem to think of that as being a benefit of their being asked to compromise.
I see this as a major problem. I would imagine that the NRA would fight your proposal on these grounds alone, calling it extra and unnecessary regulations for what is arguably the right of all Americans.
I’m leaving my personal judgement on your suggestion out of it, I’m just saying what, in my opinion, would be the blowback against it.
It’s also telling that they see any discussion as being automatically oppositional rather than collaborative. That can only be because there is no shared goal - the advocates of reasonable regulation want above all to keep people alive, while the NRA absolutists want above all to keep their weapons and acquire more as easily as they like. That’s what matters most to them, as their own words and actions demonstrate, not human life itself. That’s why any suggestion of a regulation is met with a demand for elimination of another, and that’s why they call that “compromise” and “good faith”.
Not all gun owners, Elvis. I would accept quite a few restrictions for greater public safety.
The OP’s restriction on semi-auto pistols bigger than .22 wouldn’t impact the way I own and use guns (target shooting, concealed carry, home defense), but I would have to buy new guns. I’m not a revolver owner, and I prefer semi-autos, but I could adjust.
What would happen to the semi-autos I and millions of others own? These would become illegal weapons, right? I’m a law-abiding gun owner. I’m not going to jeopardize my right to own and carry legal guns by owning illegal guns. What does the OP envision happening to all of those semi-auto pistols and rifles?
I think Australia had several mass turn-ins, no buybacks.
Um, a .22 almost assassinated Reagan. And it’s certainly going to give an intruder pause after a warning shot. Might not kill him, but you’d still be able to hear after you took the shot in close quarters at least.
Not that I’m dissing any type of handgun for home use, though I’d prefer one that isn’t going to have a round that penetrates the entire house. I’d definitely use a shotgun for home use.
Most people have no experience whatsoever in using a gun for self-defense.
edited to add: In fact most people don’t even know someone that has had to use a gun in self-defense.
I don’t know about the OP, but as far as I am concerned, grandfathering works just fine.
If you can’t buy another gun to replace it, you are less likely to sell it to someone who may use it in an inappropriate fashion. Even if it is stolen, the supply is cut off.
The point is that is a use case SCOTUS mentioned in Heller. The practical matter doesn’t matter, it seriously limits what can be done without a constitutional amendment.
While Ruken said:
“I don’t need a compromise. I’m not at any meaningful risk of harm by gun violence. Nor are most people. So no need to “give” a side anything.”
I find Ruken’s formulation more straight forward and less likely to gratuitously annoy the other side or third parties who don’t consider themselves firmly on a side (I don’t, though probably ‘pro gun’ by the standards of a quite left leaning forum, in general, like this).
Ruken just says, “I don’t need to compromise with you and I won’t”. Sometimes that’s the situation. Horatius’ formulation is more in line for a ‘taunting technical’ IMO. “The benefit of my proposal as I see it should be benefit enough for you not to negotiate for any offset”. As in the humorous accompanying thread (I sure hope it’s supposed to be) ‘I solved gun control’. As the post which should have ended that thread said, one could also ‘solve’ the abortion issue saying it will simply be illegal and all pregnant women will carry babies to term. The benefit in that of saving millions of (what they say are) lives should be enough for no one to oppose it or ask for any compromise.
Not that style points are necessarily so profound in a basically stalemated situation. And that’s where US politics is nationally, stalemated at not much in the way of federal gun control compared to some states let alone other countries. I don’t see any prospect of a sudden move. It’s not like say redefining the traditional concept of marriage where there was a relatively sudden move. That issue is all about intangible beliefs. Tens of millions who have and can buy the guns they want for legitimate purposes* have a very tangible reason not to give up that right, or even have it cut back significantly.
*no reasonable person is debating, I hope, that that’s why the vast majority of people who buy guns do so. The pro-gun controllers are just arguing that negative side effects of that right mean it would be best for society if it were curtailed, often pointing to states/countries where it has been and the world or even democracy hasn’t ended. Nonetheless, too many in the US as a whole have a very tangible objection to reducing their gun rights used for legitimate and in their view necessary purposes. Slight pluralities in ‘all adult’ polls supporting the vague idea of ‘more gun control’ is thin gruel to set against that in real life politics.
Except that there is no evidence at all we woudl get that. In America, there does not seem to be any correlation between strict gun control and lessened violent crime. In fact, one NEMJ cite used to show guns are more dangerous also concluded* “However, there was no significant correlation (P = .10) between guns per capita per country and crime rate”. *
But let us say there is a reduction in mass shootings. The chance I, or any American will die in one of those is tiny. Assault weapons kill less than 200 Americans a year. No doubt, putting govenors on cars to keep speeds below 60MPH would significantly reduce the 40000 traffic deaths a year. Banning Prescription Opioids would greatly reduce the 15000 who die from Prescription Opioid abuse., Banning Cigs would reduce the 500000 Americans who die each year.
Currents shift. What is a stalemate now can become fluid as the voting demographic changes.
The kids who are in school today that have to take part in an active shooter drill will be voting to get rid of guns, so that their kids don’t have to go through the same thing that they did. The youth are not generally all that politically active, because they just don’t see how those political change their lives any.
The previous time that the youth got organized and political was during vietnam, when our country was sending them off to die in the jungle halfway around the world. They refused to accept that, and voted accordingly.
Now, that we expect them to go to school while expecting at any time to be gunned down in their classrooms, they are not going to accept that, and they will vote accordingly.
If a compromise is not reached before these kids we are subjecting to having to imagine that there is a person, in their school, who wants to kill them, get enough votes behind them, then the gun advocacy side may not have much voice in negotiating. If nothing is done in the next 10-20 years, you are going to see an entire generation of single issue voters *against *guns, and the defense of 2A will wilt before them. They will not let their kids go through what we put them through. If they have to strike the second amendment to do that, that is exactly what they will do.
Once 2A is a footnote in history, what negotiating power do you think you will have left?