Your Gun Control Laws

[*bfine32*]

Lots of talk about gun control in light of the recent California shootings. I see folks say “we need stricter laws”; even POTUS says folks on no fly lists should not be able to purchase guns (why is that: what do they have in common?).

So you are in charge: what laws would you employ? Don’t just say “background check” (under is 3 posts); what are you checking for? I’m more of a light a candle instead of curse the darkness type. So what are your rules?

[BmorePat87]

How many of the last few mass shootings would have been prevented with gun control laws? I'm guessing almost none.

[Belsnickel]

(12-07-2015, 10:05 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: How many of the last few mass shootings would have been prevented with gun control laws? I'm guessing almost none.

The problem is that one state can have strict laws, and their neighbor will have lax ones, which makes it easy to skirt the law. For instance, how many firearms in DC and Maryland come from Virginia?

[fredtoast]

(12-07-2015, 10:05 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: How many of the last few mass shootings would have been prevented with gun control laws? I'm guessing almost none.

Forget about mass shootings.  They are only a very small portion of the gun violence problem.

1.  Any person who wants to own a gun must have some basic training and pass a test to get a license......I feel that if every person who owned a gun was aware of how many children died from accidental shootings, and how many family members kill each other in the heat of passion, and how many committed suicide with guns then more guns would be locked up.  Also knowing more about gun safety should eliminate other accidental shootings.

2.  Every gun has to be registered to an owner.......This would eliminate a lot of guns that are being provided by private sellers.  There are people who make a living buying guns legally and selling them to people who would not be allowed to buy them.  Also would make more people lock up their guns if they are aware of their liability for what happens with that gun.

3.  Background check for every gun owner (not when you buy the gun, but when you get your owners license).......Any history of criminal violence could prohibit a person from owning a gun.  This would require a lot of detail work because there are a lot of people who have been convicted of a simple assault in their lifetime that should still be allowed to own a gun.....Mental health restrictions are much more complicated.  We would need every psychologist and psychiatrist to maintain some sort of registry that would prohibit people from owning weapons.  This would be very tricky, but it could be done.

4.  Almost all gun violence involves handguns......Regulations regarding past criminal history would be stricter with handgun ownership.  You don't need a handgun to protect your home or go hunting.  But you do need one if you are trying to carry it in public without people knowing.

5.  Make the simple illegal possession of a firearm a serious felony.



None of these would keep any sane, law-abiding citizen from owning a gun, but they would reduce the access to guns that lead to so many problems.  Mass shootings are not the biggest problem.  Most shootings involve criminals shooting other criminals, people shooting someone they know in the heat of an argument, accidents, or suicides.

[BmorePat87]

(12-07-2015, 10:32 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem is that one state can have strict laws, and their neighbor will have lax ones, which makes it easy to skirt the law. For instance, how many firearms in DC and Maryland come from Virginia?

Probably a good deal. I believe the Louisiana theater shooter got his gun from Alabama. They just denied his conceal carry permit since he had a history of mental illness and was once ordered by a judge to go to a mental hospital. 

I think my response to bfine's question is I would just want to make sure there were mandatory background checks, waiting periods, and close gun show loopholes. It's silly to man cosmetic features. Of course, even with my desired laws, these crimes will happen. This isn't minority report. We don't know when people will snap. So many people can pass these things and still commit crimes. 

And of course put more emphasis on mental health. 

[BmorePat87]

(12-07-2015, 11:25 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Forget about mass shootings.  They are only a very small portion of the gun violence problem.

True, but we don't care about suicides, accidental deaths, and gun violence/crime that targets minorities and the poor. 

[fredtoast]

(12-07-2015, 10:32 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem is that one state can have strict laws, and their neighbor will have lax ones, which makes it easy to skirt the law. For instance, how many firearms in DC and Maryland come from Virginia?

That is why many of the handgun laws in Chicago were meaningless.

Outlawing the sale of handguns in a city is meaningless if they can be bought everywhere else.

[Benton]

Just two. First, everybody should have to pass a basic safety test to own a gun. Hunters in most (all?) states are required to go through a safety course, it's kind of silly that people purchasing a firearm for other reasons don't have to do the same.

"What're you doing with it?"
"Shooting deer."
"Oh, go take this basic safety course and then it's yours."

Versus...

"What're you doing with it?"
"Home protection, might have to shoot someone."
"Oh, no safety necessary. Here's your sale."

And second, background check. It's the easiest way to weed out people who aren't supposed to have one. And checks should extend to gun shows. I guess the only way to close the "gun show loophole" would be to make an arbitrary number and say "if you sell more than X guns in a year, you aren't an individual, you're a dealer."

[StLucieBengal]

I don't mind the laws as they currently are set.  

The only changes I would make is to put a gun safety course into the public schools curriculum and make it a mandatory for graduation.  Also allow for advanced classes in this area as well offerring some limited range time If possible to schedule.  

Educating the masses is the only way to tamp down irresponsible gun ownership.   Although most gun owners are responsible there are those who would have benefit from training.  

I don't want federal standards.  State standards are fine

[*bfine32*]

(12-07-2015, 11:25 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Forget about mass shootings.  They are only a very small portion of the gun violence problem.

1.  Any person who wants to own a gun must have some basic training and pass a test to get a license......I feel that if every person who owned a gun was aware of how many children died from accidental shootings, and how many family members kill each other in the heat of passion, and how many committed suicide with guns then more guns would be locked up.  Also knowing more about gun safety should eliminate other accidental shootings.

2.  Every gun has to be registered to an owner.......This would eliminate a lot of guns that are being provided by private sellers.  There are people who make a living buying guns legally and selling them to people who would not be allowed to buy them.  Also would make more people lock up their guns if they are aware of their liability for what happens with that gun.

3.  Background check for every gun owner (not when you buy the gun, but when you get your owners license).......Any history of criminal violence could prohibit a person from owning a gun.  This would require a lot of detail work because there are a lot of people who have been convicted of a simple assault in their lifetime that should still be allowed to own a gun.....Mental health restrictions are much more complicated.  We would need every psychologist and psychiatrist to maintain some sort of registry that would prohibit people from owning weapons.  This would be very tricky, but it could be done.

4.  Almost all gun violence involves handguns......Regulations regarding past criminal history would be stricter with handgun ownership.  You don't need a handgun to protect your home or go hunting.  But you do need one if you are trying to carry it in public without people knowing.

5.  Make the simple illegal possession of a firearm a serious felony.



None of these would keep any sane, law-abiding citizen from owning a gun, but they would reduce the access to guns that lead to so many problems.  Mass shootings are not the biggest problem.  Most shootings involve criminals shooting other criminals, people shooting someone they know in the heat of an argument, accidents, or suicides.

First of all: These all make good sense, but let's explore each.
 
 
1.       How does a person receive training to get the license, but must have a license to purchase a firearm? I suppose one could go to a gun range where they rent weapons, but this can be quite costly. Also should the qualifications to obtain the license be ran by state or federally?

2.       I have no issue with registering every firearms and I think it should be done annually, but we all know what comes with registration: a fee

3.       This is where it becomes almost impossible to regulate. Should a person with downs syndrome be able to own a firearm, how about a Soldier diagnosed with PTSD? Should the background check include a residency requirement? Who determines if the simple assault 20 years ago is enough to ban a person from owning a handgun? Can a dependent of someone deemed unqualified to own a gun, own a gun?

4.       In many states it is already more difficult to buy a handgun than a long barrel weapon.

5.       This is where we make our money. It almost seems reactive instead of proactive, but stricter punishments for any crime involving a handgun should be severe; to include simple illegal possession.

[*bfine32*]

(12-07-2015, 11:51 AM)Benton Wrote: And second, background check. It's the easiest way to weed out people who aren't supposed to have one. And checks should extend to gun shows. I guess the only way to close the "gun show loophole" would be to make an arbitrary number and say "if you sell more than X guns in a year, you aren't an individual, you're a dealer."

What should they be checking for?

[fredtoast]

(12-07-2015, 12:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 3.       This is where it becomes almost impossible to regulate. Should a person with downs syndrome be able to own a firearm, how about a Soldier diagnosed with PTSD? Should the background check include a residency requirement? Who determines if the simple assault 20 years ago is enough to ban a person from owning a handgun? Can a dependent of someone deemed unqualified to own a gun, own a gun?

Complicated, but not impossible.

[*bfine32*]

(12-07-2015, 12:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Complicated, but not impossible.

Perhaps impossible to get it done right. Should a dependent of someone convicted of a violent crime be able to own a weapon?

[fredtoast]

(12-07-2015, 12:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps impossible to get it done right. Should a dependent of someone convicted of a violent crime be able to own a weapon?

I assume you mean an adult dependent living in the same home?  In that case, yes.  This is an example of why I want every gun registered to a specific owner.  In this case the adult who owns the gun would be held responsible to keep it from being possessed by the person barred from ownership. 

No minor should be allowed to own a gun.

[*bfine32*]

(12-07-2015, 01:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I assume you mean an adult dependent living in the same home?  In that case, yes.  This is an example of why I want every gun registered to a specific owner.  In this case the adult who owns the gun would be held responsible to keep it from being possessed by the person barred from ownership. 

No minor should be allowed to own a gun.

Fair enough and I could "what if" it all day. I'm for stricter gun control laws as well, a lot more so than many conservatives. The issue is that we open ourselves up to a whole new world of discrimination once we start implementing stricter qualifications.
 
Here are a couple of my ideas.
 
Owning a gun should be like owning a car.
 
Once you turn a certain age (16 if there is a licensed gun owner in the home; otherwise18) you can apply for a “learner’s permit”. This written test should ask basic questions; perhaps even some that look into the mental capacity of the applicant. Other question should try to ascertain the applicant’s motivation for wanting the gun.
Your permit is good for 6 months and during that time the only time you may transport your weapon is when you are going to training and it must be open carried. When an individual is prepared to take the “on hands” portion of the qualification process, they go to a state ran testing facility and test. If they pass they are awarded a license and may now close carry and transport the weapon as they see fit.
 
Each year a licensed gun owner should have to submit a list of firearms they have.

[GMDino]

(12-07-2015, 01:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Fair enough and I could "what if" it all day. I'm for stricter gun control laws as well, a lot more so than many conservatives. The issue is that we open ourselves up to a whole new world of discrimination once we start implementing stricter qualifications.
 
Here are a couple of my ideas.
 
Owning a gun should be like owning a car.
 
Once you turn a certain age (16 if there is a licensed gun owner in the home; otherwise18) you can apply for a “learner’s permit”. This written test should ask basic questions; perhaps even some that look into the mental capacity of the applicant. Other question should try to ascertain the applicant’s motivation for wanting the gun.
Your permit is good for 6 months and during that time the only time you may transport your weapon is when you are going to training and it must be open carried. When an individual is prepared to take the “on hands” portion of the qualification process, they go to a state ran testing facility and test. If they pass they are awarded a license and may now close carry and transport the weapon as they see fit.
 
Each year a licensed gun owner should have to submit a list of firearms they have.

That last part is the sticking point.  Too many folks afraid that will lead to the gov being able to take your guns away.

[Bengalzona]

(12-07-2015, 12:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is where it becomes almost impossible to regulate. Should a person with downs syndrome be able to own a firearm, how about a Soldier diagnosed with PTSD? Should the background check include a residency requirement? Who determines if the simple assault 20 years ago is enough to ban a person from owning a handgun? Can a dependent of someone deemed unqualified to own a gun, own a gun?

I wouldn't say impossible, but definitely difficult. This would be a constant point of contention, but at least people would be talking about it. I think there are some points that people already agree on, such as certain felons should lose their right to own or have a gun. I say start with that, build on it and hash something out over time.

As far as new laws, I'm not really too sure what would work. I like what Fred outlined, the sorta "gun like car registration plan". I'd like to see the loophole closed where people can legally buy a gun and then turn around and re-sell it to someone who can't legally buy one. That and the gun show loophole.

[*Nately120*]

(12-07-2015, 01:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No minor should be allowed to own a gun.

But outlawing gun ownership for minors will disarm the law-abiding minors and put them at the mercy of outlaw minor with guns.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Do laws against murder put a stop to all murders?  No.

But, a healthy fear of prison gang rape does prevent some murders.

[Benton]

(12-07-2015, 12:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What should they be checking for?

If you're talking about new laws as opposed to what they check for now, some basic people should be prohibited. Anyone convicted of using a weapon to commit a crime; anyone convicted of a capital offense (murder or treason); being Justin Bieber; an non-U.S. citizen (note: once you become a citizen, go for it!, but not when you're just visiting or here illegally); a  history of mental illness.

There should be an appeals process to any of those. If you've had a history of depression and tried to commit suicide 10 years ago... but you're all better now... then you should have a chance to get a firearm. Likewise, if you robbed a liquor store with a shotgun when you were a teenager, but you're all reformed now, you should a chance to appeal not owning one.

What kind of panel? Keep it simple. Make it 4-6 people, two from law enforcement, one from a mental health provider, one from social services and fill in the other 1-2 people with whoever I'm forgetting.