But for starters: repeal PLCAA.
Again, you are wrong.
Now, tell us exactly what legislation you want.
Because I think they are being pretty clear and so are the anti-tobacco advocates. They support (ed?) laws which allowed adults full rein to buy tobacco and also supported laws prohibiting underaged people from buying tobacco.
Like with guns, there is a counter argument that such a law would simply allow adults to give tobacco to underaged kids or buy it for them. Okay, fair enough, so what is your proposal? Any law which allows adults (or non criminals) to buy tobacco or guns would do the same thing so it follows, so we think, that you are proposing a ban. You say you aren’t. I accept that. What are you proposing?
Well, you are not a police officer, and the police officers who actually do investigate where guns come from don’t hold the person who “lost” their gun as a prime suspect.
In fact, they will usually already have the suspect based on tons of other evidence, and they are now just following up on where the gun came from, if they bother to do so at all.
As it is, people do not report their guns lost or stolen when they lose possession of them. They don’t think they should or need to do so.
It’s your fault if you didn’t do any due diligence to keep it from being stolen. If you have it “secured” in your couch cushions, your nightstand, or in your glovebox or under your car seat, then you have made it easily available to be stolen.
And this also comes right back to the point that if you were to sell your gun to a criminal, and then that gun is used in a crime, then you would just claim that it was stolen.
Why the concentration on mass shooting events? Far more people are killed in smaller shootings.
As I said, if carrying a gun in Chicago warranted probable cause to check someone’s CCW or legal status, then criminals would not be able to walk the streets armed to the teeth.
Being able to trace where these guns came from, and effectively prosecute straw dealers would reduce the incentive for straw dealers in Indiana to provide guns to criminals who would take them to Chicago.
Many and myriad ways, but as long as you start from the presumption that I have nefarious motives, you will always find a way to justify your suspicions, and there’s nothing that I can do about that.
I don’t see why, as you have just seen, just because someone is a family member doesn’t mean that they know about their criminal history.
Straw sales are already illegal. What law are you proposing here?
Could you really arrest, charge, and successfully prosecute someone based on them not possessing all the guns that they had purchased? Without proof of sales, which usually gets called entrapment like the Ruby Ridge case, there is no way to prove that they actually were selling these guns, and didn’t just lose or have them stolen.
You are on a jury, the prosecution tells you that this guy bought 40 guns last year, and after a gun used in a homicide was traced back to him, he was investigated, and only 4 guns were found in the home. The defense claims that he kept them unlocked and unsecured in his garage, and someone stole broke into his garage and stole them. Has the prosecution made a case beyond a reasonable doubt? Do you vote to convict?
You have cut and pasted snippets of legal code, and then used some pretty sketchy logic to claim that they say what you say they do.
A quick google shows me this, where an insurance company is offering exactly the product you claim doesn’t exist.
I’ve looked fairly extensively at the arguments against this law, and there are a whole lot of people out there arguing against this law based on the constitution or common sense or whatever, but I have not seen a single person arguing what you are arguing here. You are the only person on the internet that I can find that is making this claim.
I’ll accept argument from authority here, maybe I’m not as in tune with the pro-gun advocacy crowd, and haven’t seen all their arguments, so if you can find me one prominent pro-gun advocate that makes the same argument, then I’ll give you the point that this is a bad law on those grounds.
Admittedly, in the event that you find anyone to support your claim, I’ll still invoke Hanlon’s Razor, and make the assumption that this was an oversight based on ignorance of very complex laws, and not a nefarious attempt to ban guns.
If it is shown that there is an insurance policy that is legal and does meet the requirements of the San Jose law, will you drop this line of argument?
And there are laws against doing that. It’s a state by state thing, and most states don’t have a very big penalty or spend much time investigating such second hand sales, but in most states, supplying alcohol to a minor is much more serious, has a much larger penalty, and is investigated more thoroughly.
If your kids have a party and get into your liquor cabinet, then you can be held liable. But if they get your gun out of the couch cushions, you aren’t.
This is to contrast with gun laws, where in most states, you don’t have to know the person that you are selling to, and as long as they can’t prove that you knew that the person was a prohibited person, they can’t and won’t charge you with anything.
Please tell us how this will keep guns out of the hands of criminals, reduce the murder rate or violent crime.
So think this a gun grabber proposal?
I also support a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
It will help hold gun dealers and manufacturers accountable for their contributions to the flow of crime guns.
Victim blaming. It is a rape victims fault if she goes out late, alone in a bad neighborhood?
Is it a car owners fault if he doesn’t have a car alarm?
It does already. Illinois is not a open carry state, and it is moderately difficult to get a CCW.
Yes. If done on the scale I mentioned. The ATF already regulates dealers.
No it does not. It does not cover deliberate illegal use, nor does it specify what they mean by If your legally possessed firearm is lost or stolen and an incident occurs, Personal Firearms Liability Insurance will protect against the costs associated with claims. However, my cites show that such insurance is illegal in CA.
Even in a best-case scenario where gun liability insurance is widely available and the requirement is widely enforced, these insurance plans will cover only a miniscule fraction of gun deaths and injuries occurring inside San Jose.
*Most acts of gun violence involve [criminal or intentionally wrongful acts]
Here Are 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America), which California law prohibits insurance companies from covering. Importantly, this would exclude coverage not just for homicide and assault, but also for gun suicides, which comprise 60% of all gun deaths.
Additionally, while the new law purports to make gun owners responsible for any harm inflicted by lost or stolen firearms unless the guns were first reported as lost or stolen, homeowner’s and renter’s insurance policies cover acts committed only by the insured person while on the insured property.
“The law is unconstitutional,” Harmeet Dhillon, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said Wednesday. “The law compels people to purchase insurance that doesn’t necessarily exist and that demonstrates that this law is not a good faith attempt to do anything other than ban or burden the lawful possession of guns.”
“This will have zero to less than zero impact on reducing gun violence or paying for the results of gun violence,” Parades said. “There isn’t an insurance policy that exists out there that would cover that.”
Esparza and Davis echoed similar sentiment, noting insurance agents they spoke to said only accidental firings outside of a household could potentially be covered. Negligence or criminal behavior would not.
“I spoke with two insurance agents including my own from different companies and neither of them said that negligence use is specifically covered in their policies,” Davis said. “I’m still not certain how we can require a specific type of insurance that does not exist.”
Personally, I support a state or municipality’s right to do so, and were it my municipality, then I’d probably be in favor. I’m not nearly as bit on a federal ban, though I would still strongly regulate guns with high rates of automatic fire.
How?
And again, how will this keep guns out of the hands of criminals, reduce the murder rate or violent crime?
“Assault weapons” are not a issue in overall murder rates or violent crime. Rifles of all sort are responsible for around 4% per the FBI. How will this reduce the murder rate or violent crime?
There are over 20 million “assault weapons” in the U.S. There’s no practical way to ban them. Any attempt to do so will result in unintended consequences. Even anti-gun people admit this.
I thought this was no longer a debatable issue. I am surprised some people are still discussing it.
So, if I’m understanding you correctly, you don’t think either of these would be effective or part of a common sense gun control legislation?
How about investing in community violence intervention programs? Do you think that will effectively keep guns out of the hands of criminals, reduce the murder rate or violent crime?
Like what?
First of all, and IMO, any additional restrictions on gun ownership will likely not cause a significant reduction in crime. It might make a slight reduction. But more-than-likely it will have no effect, or perhaps even make it worse.
Secondly, we can’t do what other countries have done; we can’t ban guns outright, nor can we put major restrictions on ownership. We just can’t, from a legal perspective. It’s perplexing that some people keep trying. Their energies would be much better spent on identifying the root causes of crime, and put resources toward them.
Ok you’re right. There is no reasonable gun law. They all lead to banning. And anyone who thinks otherwise is directly the real cause of gun violence.
The victim is the one who ends up with gunshot wounds. That’s the victim that you are desperate to ignore.
If he leaves his car running and unlocked on the street, yes, he does bear some responsibility for what happens if someone uses it negligently. Only in some cases legally, but ethically, absolutly.
So, if a cop sees a bulge that looks like a gun under someone’s jacket, that cop can stop that person on that alone?
If it is shown that someone is selling guns on that scale, yes. But how do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn’t a victim of theft? Will you be calling it “victim blaming” when someone is charged with a crime because they were stolen from?
Seriously, I asked you, you are on a jury. Prosecution says that this guy bought 40 guns, only has 4 left. Defense claims that he had them in his garage which was broken into and the guns stolen. Are you really saying that you will vote to convict, that you wouldn’t have reasonable doubt?
As anti-gun as I get painted here, I’d have a hard time convicting beyond a reasonable doubt.
Which is one of the reasons that I support laws saying that you have to secure your guns with some level of due diligence and care, so that, while I may be swayed that he was a victim of theft enough to not put him away for life, I would still be more than able to convict him for negligence in securing his guns, which would be a much smaller penalty, but enough of one the get people to secure their guns.
Your cite simply says that the insurance that is called for by San Jose wouldn’t cover a large portion of the costs imposed by improper use of guns. It doesn’t say that the San Jose law requires people to get insurance that is illegal to have.
And, as your cite points out, current insurance doesn’t cover accidents committed while off of your property. Do you object to requiring some kind of insurance to carry your gun off your property (and properly insured ranges and such)? If your kid pulls your gun out in the store and shoots me, who is going to pay those medical bills?
It doesn’t say that it compels people to purchase insurance that is illegal to offer. If insurance companies do adopt a policy that is acceptable to San Jose, does that drop your objection?
That would be a great start.
Not sure the hair they are splitting there. Aren’t accidents caused by negligence.
If your kid pulls out your gun in the store and shoots me, is that an accident or negligence? How is it currently covered under homeowner’s insurance, if I am at your house, and your kid pulls your gun out of your couch cushions and shoots me, is that an accident or negligence?
If California law is made to require insurance companies to offer insurance that meets San Jose standards, does that put your objection to rest?
Personally, I’m more for a larger group insurance model, where everyone pays in, to help cover the medical costs and other damages incurred by gun violence. But, private insurance has the benefit that it’s not govt fiat, and you can choose to pay more to have more risky behavior. If you get caught speeding, you don’t lose your insurance or driver’s license immediately, but you do get a bump in your premiums, as it has been demonstrated that you are not as safe a driver as you should be. Same with guns, if you are found using or storing it negligently, rather than the cops busting down your door and confiscating them, you get an increase in your premiums.
Encouraging people to be responsible with their guns, and helping to mitigate the cost done to others when people are not responsible enough is the goal of this law. If you object to people being responsible for their guns, or for people who have been harmed by the negligence of other gun owners, then you should oppose this law. If you are for people being responsible for their guns, and for people harmed by negligent use of guns being assisted in the medical and other costs foisted on them, then you should be for a law like this, and rather than objecting to the law entirely, you should be offering constructive criticism to make it work better.
I am a responsible driver. I haven’t had any accident in almost 25 years, and I’ve never had an accident that was my fault. Yet, I keep auto insurance, and every dollar that I put into it goes to cover people who are not as responsible drivers as I am. I don’t see why I should have to continue to pay for irresponsible drivers, if gun owners don’t think that they should help to cover the damages caused by irresponsible gun owners.
If a law passes that puts additional restrictions on gun ownership, the anti-gunners will not close up shop. They will seek even more restrictions. And if they get those passed, they still won’t close up shop: they will seek even more restrictions.
We see the same incrementalism in others areas. I am not condoning DUI, but here in Ohio MADD and other groups got the BAC limit lowered from 0.1% to 0.08%, and now they’re pushing for 0.05%. If we get 0.05%, they won’t close up shop: they will push for 0.02%. If that’s passed, they will push for 0.005%, or whatever. (Again, I am against driving while impaired, and have no problem with 0.08% or even 0.05%. I am simply using this as an example.)
Ah slippery slope.
So what if people want further restrictions? They will only get them if they become popular enough to enact. You will be able to argue against them when they come up.
Using the possibility that you may have to argue against future restrictions is not a good argument against restrictions. You should argue on the merits of it itself, not against some hypothetical future.
I think what bugs me more than anything is the dishonesty from these people and these groups, on what their ultimate intentions are.