Commonsense gun laws.

[Old-Time-Lifter]

Generally, when somebody says that they really mean "ban" all guns. BUT, are there some laws, regulations, or procedures that would really help keep guns out of unstable individuals hands.

Let's talk responsibly, a tough order for the 035 I know.

If all you have is "nobody" needs an AR or an AK, etc, etc, then keep it to yourself that's not helpful.

To start it off here are my thoughts.

1) Raise the legal age for all gun purchases to 21.

2) Require a permit to purchase any firearm. This would be the same permit now required to purchase a handgun in most states, which in Nebraska & Iowa at least requires you to go to the Local Law Enforcement and fill out a form and to be checked. This would alleviate the burden of back ground checks.

3) Require gun safety training as part of acquiring a permit, like one must complete in order to get a CCW permit today. This should require some actual hands-on training.

These actions shouldn't be intended nor expected to end school violence. That is an entirely different thread topic.

[Cantplankwell]

Dont know what laws and procedures are in place, but Ill take a swing at this...

I think your local community could play a roll here, maybe your community should decide whether you can be trusted to own a weapon.

So you want to buy a gun.

You have to be 21.

Most countries when you get a passport, you need references, people who have known you for some period of time. Also you need a community professionals/leaders, usually someone like your GP-Dr. Dentist, Accountant, Notary Public, Lawyer etc, or a clergyman, town council, mayor etc. I think they have to have know you for at least 3-5 years.

You need to go shopping, for whatever you want. You get a quote for the gun, specs, intended use or whatever: collector, hunter-sportsman, self defense etc.

You declare what types of firearms you would like to own, and why. This is a declaration to the community

You need the 3-4 individuals to sign off that they know that you are a person in good standing in that community, your licensed professional vouches for the other others and you. If you are able to pass all tiers and are a responsible person your permissions are all in order you can potentially posses all manner of firearms that are reasonable. For example, you are a cop, an ex serviceman with years of service and honorable discharge, you can own an AR-15 because you are beyond reproach, if you are young, and inexperienced, you permissions are much lower, if any.

You take the requisite safety courses.

There is a waiting period of a couple of weeks

You hand all of your information and paperwork into the local police station. They crosscheck the information takes a few days. You get your gun owners card. You now have the right to purchase firearms within your jurisdiction, YOU ONLY HAVE TO DO THE ABOVE ONCE. If you move to another area in the country you may have to repeat only a couple of the steps.

[Dave76]

Texas already requires gun safety training for a hunting license. I could see expanding that requirement to purchasing a gun provided that you only take the course one time and not with every gun purchase.

Let me say that I don't own a semi auto rifle and have no experience with them. You hear a lot of talk about banning high capacity magazines. Will that really be helpful? Friends tell me that they can change magazines fast enough that it wouldn't make much difference.

[weiss1967]

You need something like what we have here in Canada. Purchase of firearms requires possession and acquisition licence, which in turn requires firearm safety training and exam, and - hear this - two month cool-off period and two references from friends who are not family members who believe that you can be trusted with the loaded gun. This last requirements instantly weed out complete wackos.

Raising legal age to 21 sounds good, could theoretically help to keep teenage drama away from guns. But when you think of it, it will not. Instead, I believe kids should be introduced to firearms early, and allowed to have all the fun in the world, and learn responsibility and discipline early on. Proper training, like ISSF-style target shooting, cleaning guns and storing them properly - all this does something to youngsters. I have seen it in my son and his friends.

[mtpockets]

I think most responsible gun owners wouldn't have issues with such laws, but what do you do about the illegal firearms out there already?
How about those carrying without permits? Do they have a right to bear arms? I'm sure no one needed a permit for muskets, way back when.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just generating food for thought.

[mtpockets]

You need something like what we have here in Canada. Purchase of firearms requires possession and acquisition licence, which in turn requires firearm safety training and exam, and - hear this - two month cool-off period and two references from friends who are not family members who believe that you can be trusted with the loaded gun. This last requirements instantly weed out complete wackos.

Raising legal age to 21 sounds good, could theoretically help to keep teenage drama away from guns. But when you think of it, it will not. Instead, I believe kids should be introduced to firearms early, and allowed to have all the fun in the world, and learn responsibility and discipline early on. Proper training, like ISSF-style target shooting, cleaning guns and storing them properly - all this does something to youngsters. I have seen it in my son and his friends.

The 2 month waiting period doesn't include the almost 45 day application process time. (unless that has changed)

[BrightonBomber]

They need to make every gun sale one from a licensed vendor and every person to have a background check when purchasing a gun. If people want to sell their guns they'll need to do so via a licensed vendor. About 20% of gun sales in the US are done privately, so there are no background checks which is why you have so many unregistered guns.

Everyone would need a permit to own a gun and each weapon must be registered. Doesn't matter if they have 1 gun or 100, all must be accounted for. There would need to be an amnesty for people looking to return guns a there are bound to be people who own guns they shouldn't due to criminal record, mental health issues etc.

Raising the age to 21 would definitely help with school shootings.

[Old-Time-Lifter]

Dont know what laws and procedures are in place, but Ill take a swing at this...

I think your local community could play a roll here, maybe your community should decide whether you can be trusted to own a weapon.

So you want to buy a gun.

You have to be 21.

Most countries when you get a passport, you need references, people who have known you for some period of time. Also you need a community professionals/leaders, usually someone like your GP-Dr. Dentist, Accountant, Notary Public, Lawyer etc, or a clergyman, town council, mayor etc. I think they have to have know you for at least 3-5 years.

You need to go shopping, for whatever you want. You get a quote for the gun, specs, intended use or whatever: collector, hunter-sportsman, self defense etc.

You declare what types of firearms you would like to own, and why. This is a declaration to the community

You need the 3-4 individuals to sign off that they know that you are a person in good standing in that community, your licensed professional vouches for the other others and you. If you are able to pass all tiers and are a responsible person your permissions are all in order you can potentially posses all manner of firearms that are reasonable. For example, you are a cop, an ex serviceman with years of service and honorable discharge, you can own an AR-15 because you are beyond reproach, if you are young, and inexperienced, you permissions are much lower, if any.

You take the requisite safety courses.

There is a waiting period of a couple of weeks

You hand all of your information and paperwork into the local police station. They crosscheck the information takes a few days. You get your gun owners card. You now have the right to purchase firearms within your jurisdiction, YOU ONLY HAVE TO DO THE ABOVE ONCE. If you move to another area in the country you may have to repeat only a couple of the steps.

I don't have time to go through your ideas point by point, maybe I'll have time tomorrow.

BUT, many of your points would be really difficult in some locals where liberals are the dominant force. Why should the community need to know how many guns I own and what type? As long as I'm competent it should be none of their business. As one who lives in a small town, I can also see petty motives entering into the picture. Besides how are you going to do this, have an election?

I'll try to get back to this asap, but thanks for your input.

[mtpockets]

Raising the age to 21 would definitely help with school shootings.

An age restriction of 21 would have to have exceptions.

Subsistence lifestyle for example, not applicable in NYC but sure is in Alaska
Farmers are another

[Old-Time-Lifter]

They need to make every gun sale one from a licensed vendor and every person to have a background check when purchasing a gun. If people want to sell their guns they'll need to do so via a licensed vendor. About 20% of gun sales in the US are done privately, so there are no background checks which is why you have so many unregistered guns.

Everyone would need a permit to own a gun and each weapon must be registered. Doesn't matter if they have 1 gun or 100, all must be accounted for. There would need to be an amnesty for people looking to return guns a there are bound to be people who own guns they shouldn't due to criminal record, mental health issues etc.

Raising the age to 21 would definitely help with school shootings.

Gun registries are never going to fly. Only the honest people will register and that won't stop crime.
Forcing private individuals to have to use an FFL for private transactions can have unintended consequences, where I grew up guns are often Christmas gifts. Do I have to have an FFL (and pay them) do a transfer to my family member.

Registering a gun also makes it so a round-up and confiscation is easier. It's been done before, I and many others don't trust the government that much.

I don't have an issue with requiring gun sales by individuals to require that the purchaser have a pistol permit. Most of those that I know who sell guns to individuals already require that. I've bought several guns from individuals in the last few years, everytime I was asked to show a permit. Requiring folks to use an FFL though is too far for me and would be for most collectors that I know.

[Guinea-pig]

Texas already requires gun safety training for a hunting license. I could see expanding that requirement to purchasing a gun provided that you only take the course one time and not with every gun purchase.

Let me say that I don't own a semi auto rifle and have no experience with them. You hear a lot of talk about banning high capacity magazines. Will that really be helpful? Friends tell me that they can change magazines fast enough that it wouldn't make much difference.

You can still purchase a hunting license without a gun safty course in Texas..

[BrightonBomber]

Gun registries are never going to fly. Only the honest people will register and that won't stop crime.
Forcing private individuals to have to use an FFL for private transactions can have unintended consequences, where I grew up guns are often Christmas gifts. Do I have to have an FFL (and pay them) do a transfer to my family member.

Registering a gun also makes it so a round-up and confiscation is easier. It's been done before, I and many others don't trust the government that much.

I don't have an issue with requiring gun sales by individuals to require that the purchaser have a pistol permit. Most of those that I know who sell guns to individuals already require that. I've bought several guns from individuals in the last few years, everytime I was asked to show a permit. Requiring folks to use an FFL though is too far for me and would be for most collectors that I know.

Not saying it would be easy would likely take decades to get the majority of the unregistered guns out of the system. But the fact is while guns can't be traced and can be sold, given to anyone you'll have criminals being able to access guns legally. This of course won't end crime, nothing will ever do that, but it will reduce it. Though it maybe just replaced with knife crime, acid attacks like we have in the UK. But it might reduce casualty rates.

I can't see how any rational person can support a system that allows, criminals, the mentally ill and potential terrorists legal access to guns which is what is happening which is why most crimes are committed by legally purchased guns. As a criminal why buy a gun off the black market with you can get one from a gun show or a person you know who can legally purchase and then sell to you.

As for a registry resulting in confiscations. Well they did it before you say and that was without a registry, why would having one change anything if it was done before without a registry. Personally I don't think gun ownership is even the problem in the US, it's more the fact any nut job or sociopath has such easy access to weapons. So it's less the number of weapons or even types of weapons but the inability to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. US gun laws are not fit for purpose, in fact they might as well not exist.

[DuracellBunny]

You need to pass a test to get a driving license, and can have that license suspended/revoked for legal or medical reasons. I don't believe that applying similar criteria to guns (passing a test to get a license) is unreasonable.

[BrightonBomber]

Laws only apply to law abiding citizens.

What any nation “could” do is make the penalty so fcking drastic as to cause a person, crazy or not, to believe that breaking that particular law would be the end of them.

For example, if you are in possession of an illegal firearm, you go away for a long time. A very long time.

We have a law in Illinois which explicitly forbids use of a cell phone by a driver in a car, except with a hands free device. I see drivers ALL of the time who break this law. The fine us line 75.00. In today’s money, that’s nothing. Make it 5000.00 dollars, and now the law has teeth.

It’s not the law that’s the issue, it’s the penalty for breaking the law.

That "law only applies to law abiding citizens" line always baffles me, if that is the case how have other countries like Australia and the UK been able to enforce their gun laws to restrict gun ownership and I'm not even talking about imposing laws half as draconian as in these countries. Are Americans really just a bunch of law less sociopaths as you describe, I don't think so. Americans are in general a pretty law abiding bunch as are most civilised and developed cultures.

And even if what you say is true, then surely that would mean all laws are pointless, so why even have laws because as you say people will ignore them. Just because a minority will not follow the laws and morality of it's society doesn't mean we should abandon the concepts of law and order and morality.

I disagree about the penalty being the issue to some degree, harsh penalties have a limited ability to dissuade criminality. It's the ability to enforce a law that is all important, to ensure the minority see there are consequences. What the consequences are tend to be a moot point, because criminals being the idiots they are never think they will get caught, so who cares if the penalty is harsh if they don't think they'll ever be caught. So all those people using their cell phones are using them not because the penalties are not harsh enough, but that they think they won't be caught and in the majority of cases that is true.

So whatever laws regarding guns they were to bring in, they would have to be enforceable, if they are not, they are worthless and would be nothing more than political posturing.

[Entropia]

I don't think firearm training should be mandatory, but I do think it should be done voluntarily. I'm old fashioned when it comes to "shall not be infringed", though anyone who owns a gun should become proficient with it and understand firearm safety.

No amount of gun legislation is going to make a mental lunatic any less mental. That's what needs to be addressed in this country first and foremost.

[Brackneyc]

That "law only applies to law abiding citizens" line always baffles me, if that is the case how have other countries like Australia and the UK been able to enforce their gun laws to restrict gun ownership and I'm not even talking about imposing laws half as draconian as in these countries. Are Americans really just a bunch of law less sociopaths as you describe, I don't think so. Americans are in general a pretty law abiding bunch as are most civilised and developed cultures.

And even if what you say is true, then surely that would mean all laws are pointless, so why even have laws because as you say people will ignore them. Just because a minority will not follow the laws and morality of it's society doesn't mean we should abandon the concepts of law and order and morality.

I disagree about the penalty being the issue to some degree, harsh penalties have a limited ability to dissuade criminality. It's the ability to enforce a law that is all important, to ensure the minority see there are consequences. What the consequences are tend to be a moot point, because criminals being the idiots they are never think they will get caught, so who cares if the penalty is harsh if they don't think they'll ever be caught. So all those people using their cell phones are using them not because the penalties are not harsh enough, but that they think they won't be caught and in the majority of cases that is true.

So whatever laws regarding guns they were to bring in, they would have to be enforceable, if they are not, they are worthless and would be nothing more than political posturing.

I did delete my post before anyone responded, because I didn’t like the way it looked. But, you responded, so it’s fine.

Laws are not pointless because we can enforce them if people are caught. Most broken laws don’t end with 17 dead people as a result.

Gun laws work in countries like yours because you don’t have many.

They won’t work here because there are 300 million guns already out there, and probably trillions of rounds of ammo.

I’ll be specific here: no new gun laws would have stopped this kid, and won’t stop the next one.

He was heavy on the radar of law enforcement, and still nothing was done.

This is not a gun law issue, and the number of non violent gun owners supports this, no matter how you frame it.

[Iceman1800]

One issue is the hypocrisy of one political party. Their go-to phrase of "shall not" only applies to guns rights in the 2nd ammendment. They don't have a problem when people talk about voting rights being infringed upon even tho that same "shall not" is part of the 15th ammendment which protects our right to vote. Politicians are afraid to even sit down and talk about any type of gun control for fear of the NRA backlash.

[Brackneyc]

One issue is the hypocrisy of one political party. Their go-to phrase of "shall not" only applies to guns rights in the 2nd ammendment. They don't have a problem when people talk about voting rights being infringed upon even tho that same "shall not" is part of the 15th ammendment which protects our right to vote. Politicians are afraid to even sit down and talk about any type of gun control for fear of the NRA backlash.

maybe a quick rewrite of the constitution is in order. Antiquated rules for our now seemingly progressive nation.

[Iceman1800]

maybe a quick rewrite of the constitution is in order. Antiquated rules for our now seemingly progressive nation.

I agree but unfortunately we no longer have the type of leaders in our country that wrote the original one. That type of character and integrity is nowhere to be found in today's politicians.

[Brackneyc]

I agree but unfortunately we no longer have the type of leaders in our country that wrote the original one. That type of character and integrity is nowhere to be found in today's politicians.

Sadly, this is exactly the case. But I don’t really want it rewritten. I want it respected, without all sorts of loose interpretations to fit what we want it to say.

[Fishman15]

One issue is the hypocrisy of one political party. Their go-to phrase of "shall not" only applies to guns rights in the 2nd ammendment. They don't have a problem when people talk about voting rights being infringed upon even tho that same "shall not" is part of the 15th ammendment which protects our right to vote. Politicians are afraid to even sit down and talk about any type of gun control for fear of the NRA backlash.

Are you saying legal citizen's voting rights are being infringed? Who...and how?

[Iceman1800]

Are you saying legal citizen's voting rights are being infringed? Who...and how?

No, I didn't say that. It's a common talking point on the right with their desire to restrict voting rights for certain groups.

[Mark1T]

I think the NRA was open to legislating bump stocks. Don't know the status, but probably safe to assume it's just rhetoric with no action.

[taf1968]

One issue is the hypocrisy of one political party. Their go-to phrase of "shall not" only applies to guns rights in the 2nd ammendment. They don't have a problem when people talk about voting rights being infringed upon even tho that same "shall not" is part of the 15th ammendment which protects our right to vote. Politicians are afraid to even sit down and talk about any type of gun control for fear of the NRA backlash.

Interesting. So republicans are intransigent because they won't discuss even more restrictions on gun owners when there have already been multiple restrictions added over time. But democrats are on the right side by refusing to discuss any steps at all to have someone's identify and eligibility to vote confirmed? Some might call that hypocrisy.

The current system would actually be working pretty well if people were doing their jobs. The TX church shooter and the South Carolina church shooter both had disqualifying events that would have prevented them from buying guns legally . . . if only the pencil pushers had entered the information into the NICs system. The Aurora theater shooter was known to be off his rocker, yet nobody took action. And now it appears that the same may have been true for the whackjob in FL.

Tighten up the background check process and ensure people who should be in the system are in the system if they have disqualifying criteria. Mental health is tricky . . . you can't defend the Constitution and its provisions around "shall not be infringed" and then support restricting rights without due process. I think you have to have ways of flagging people like Holmes and this FL douchebag, but then you also have to have safeguards against being incorrectly added to "the list" and ways to contest it and be removed. That's where I think the main struggle will be. Sounds reasonable and easy as a talking point . . . how you could get there in reality is a different story.

[taf1968]

I think the NRA was open to legislating bump stocks. Don't know the status, but probably safe to assume it's just rhetoric with no action.

The NRA's stance was basically that it was a matter of classification . . . that if the BATFE determines that a bump stock "remakes" a semi-auto rifle as a machine gun that it should fall under the current NFA guidelines and you should have to apply for a tax stamp (background check and $200 fee) to own one just like you need for a machine gun, SBR, SBS, suppressor, etc. already.

One could argue whether that should be the case and argue whether parts of the NFA are ridiculous . . . but that was the NRA's position.

For example, in Europe, you can easily get a suppressor--just walk in and buy one. It's a "hearing safety" thing there.

[Corbi]

No, I didn't say that. It's a common talking point on the right with their desire to restrict voting rights for certain groups.

Which groups would those be? If you are thinking of the "undocumented " aka illegal aliens then yes those should be restricted & in fact not allowed to vote. I as a non citizen can't go vote in Germany or Mexico while visiting or even if I lived there until I was granted citizenship. Why should it be any different here?

[PeaceWithin]

Posting ITT to remind me to come back and read it, because it is infinitely better than the 30+ page chitshow in the main MISC with the same regurgitated talking points...

[Mark1T]

The NRA's stance was basically that it was a matter of classification . . . that if the BATFE determines that a bump stock "remakes" a semi-auto rifle as a machine gun that it should fall under the current NFA guidelines and you should have to apply for a tax stamp (background check and $200 fee) to own one just like you need for a machine gun, SBR, SBS, suppressor, etc. already.

One could argue whether that should be the case and argue whether parts of the NFA are ridiculous . . . but that was the NRA's position.

For example, in Europe, you can easily get a suppressor--just walk in and buy one. It's a "hearing safety" thing there.

Thanks.

[mtpockets]

he's sticking things where they don't belong again, this time it's his nose.

[Brackneyc]

No, I didn't say that. It's a common talking point on the right with their desire to restrict voting rights for certain groups.

Like felons and non citizens?