General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums1. Close the "gun show loophole".
2. Mandatory safety training.
3. Mandatory insurance.
4. Background check and waiting period for ALL sales with no exceptions.
5. Operator license like a vehicle.
6. Heavy penalties for failure to comply.
Why not?
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Initech
(99,915 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)This isn't Japan or Australia, and a ban has the support of perhaps 25% of the population in the U.S.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...which would require ratification from 37 states. Good luck with that, you'd be doing good to get 6 states to pass.
Furthermore, even if a ban could be enacted, there's no possible way to confiscate all guns, there's 200,000,000 of them. And an instant black market would be created, making it very profitable to traffic in weapons. No matter how bad you think the current registration/licensing system is, it would be far worse with a completely unregulated black market.
OP and Bernie are correct...close the loophole, require all sales to be registered/background checked, and other measures that might have the backing of a sizeable number of gun owners.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)The preamble is a good instruction manual on the BoR.
To 1 and 2 but not the others (though willing to discuss). Insurance won't cover criminal acts, waiting periods (IMO) aren't constitutional (where do they end - is a 6 month waiting period ok), I don't support licenses for a constitutionally protected right, and penalties are too much like a poll tax.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Insurance covers the victims. They have nothing now.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,178 posts)Connecticut looked into this after Sandy Hook. Several insurance companies testified and every single one said they wouldn't cover an intentional illegal act. The most they would cover is negligence, and this is already fairly standard issue in homeowners/renters insurance.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2013/03/26/286098.htm
As for licenses to own, this is on shaky legal ground. Ownership can't require a license, as a license is technically a rental in that case. You can license carrying a gun concealed, or driving a car on roads, but no one needs a license to actually own the object.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)And that's not even addressing what the common meaning of well-regulated in 1789.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Then people can have muzzle loaders. Those were the guns in question in 1790.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)modernization of arms is relevant, I think.
A rifle is still a rifle.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)and the NRA would love that just like AARP
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)and allows access to NICS, that would take care of #1 (although 'loophole' seems inaccurate since the law currently does not allow public access to NICS).
I am in favor of gun safety training. I think all youth should attend a gun safety class.
I don't quite understand what #3 will accomplish, except to line the pockets of the NRA. The insurance would not cover illegal or negligent use of a firearm.
I am in favor of #4. That is what a UBC does. We currently have that for sales from licensed gun dealers.
Number five seems to be a national gun registry. That is currently illegal under federal law and it does not apply to felons.
I am in favor of heavy penalties for violating gun laws. I wish they were enforced. There should be a minimum 10 year prison term for a straw purchase in which the gun is used in a crime. Currently, straw purchase laws are enforced unevenly.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)It might not be what you suppose.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)that is part of the problem. If the proposed UBC law is reasonable, it may have a chance to pass.
I am a deer hunter. We have family and friends in our deer camp. It should not be illegal for me to allow a friend, a brother, a niece, a nephew, or anyone else in camp to use my rifle.
I would also allow sales/transfers without background checks between family members. If one of those family members is prohibited from firearms ownership, and if that family member uses the gun illegally, the person who transferred the weapon should be prosecuted.
There might be other provisions that I would agree or disagree with in a UBC law.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)they cared about anything more than a fistful of cash.
Private individuals should not be able to use the NICS system.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)Why not?
I would not be opposed to having the UBC include using FFLs for the background check, as long as the cost is not unreasonable and the process not too cumbersome.
Frankly, I have read some of your posts and I do not believe most of your hyperbole is helpful in lessening gun violence. Not all gun owners are the bubbas you believe them to be.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)And, one could easily use the system to check on just about anyone's background to see if they had an issue preventing them from owning a gun. Might not know exactly what the issue is, but it's not difficult to make a guess.
Most of all, if you aren't willing to pay $35 or so to an FFL to ensure you are not selling to someone barred from gun ownership, you are not a responsible gun owner.
As an obvious gun fancier, I doubt you really care about doing anything about guns but preserving your right to access more, and carry them on city streets.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)Why would you think I am an 'obvious gun fancier'? How many guns does one need to own to become an
'obvious gun fancier'?
Your point about record keeping is a point that would need to be addressed if NICS was opened to the public to transfer gun purchases.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I can understand your anger about gun violence. What I cannot understand is the broad brush you use in your opinions of gun owners. I live in Minnesota. There are many Democratic lawmakers here who would never attempt to outlaw guns, not because they are afraid of the NRA, but because they are gun owners themselves. We have a long tradition of hunting (not that hunting has anything to do with the 2A). Your hyperbole and rhetoric on the issue of guns is not helpful to the cause of reducing gun violence in the U.S.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I am concerned about lots of gunz; shooting at silhouette targets that resemble humans; toting guns on city streets; promoting guns; profiting from guns; introducing kids to guns and training to shooting people; apologizing for guns and gun yahoos; being concerned about what to tell police if you pull a Zimmerman; cheering folks like Zman; an attraction to military looking weapons (seems pretty sick to me); support of NRA; teabaggers protesting with gunz on their hips to show "those minorities a thing or two;" standing in a long line immediately after Sandy Hook to buy an AR; intimidation with guns; posing with guns as a member of a militia, border klan, etc., group; compensating with a gun; the gun culture; voting based upon guns; gun tragedies; gun laws that make it easy to get away with shooting someone; etc.
Your "do nothing" buddies aren't doing a lot about gun violence either, they just care about their access to guns and being able to have as many as they want, anywhere they want.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)most gun owners are not what you are describing in the post to which I am responding. If you would be more reasonable in your rhetoric on DU about gun owners, you would get more people to agree with you about the need for some changes in gun laws in the various states.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 2, 2015, 03:34 PM - Edit history (1)
up until they weren't. Most gunners still think zman is a fine gun fancier.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)vast majority of gun fanciers.
I get guns are very important to you. Hope you will mature.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)But they get lost in your rhetoric and ad hominen attacks. Despite what you might think, just about every person that posts on this website, regardless of his or her views on gun control, is a Democrat. I've voted Democrat all my life (since I was eligible to vote in 1988). I certainly support an individual right to keep and bears arms, but am willing to entertain how we make Americans safer while protecting that right. It appears that you just intend to take the extreme -- and unreasonable/unworkable -- position that guns must be banned.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)returned , but are still right wing gun trolls . . . . .and racists.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I think it's much more reasonable to just require every transfer by processed by an FFL for a statutory fee.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Crunchy Frog
(26,548 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Data kept and made public on every stolen gun reported. Failure to register gun or report it missing at yearly registration period results in increasing fines.
Waldorf
(654 posts)1. Pretty much all the dealers are FFL's, not much would change with closing the "loophole". The non-ffls are the ones in the parking lot selling stuff out of the trunk.
2. I know the hot topic today is what happened in Oregon but what would safety training have to do with it? The guy murdered people.
3. Insurance would cover the loss of a firearm and an accident. Like other insurances, the policy would be voided if an illegal act was committed. Nut kills 10 people, insurance not responsible.
4. Absolutely, background checks. I'd like to see NICS opened up to private citizens so background checks can be run. Don't see a reason to having a waiting period if the person passes background check.
5. Operating a vehicle is a privilege. Owning a firearm is a right. We pretty much have a license established (conceal carry).
6. Totally agree.
Most illegal firearms are obtained by either straw purchasers or shady dealers with a FFL. Both are federal crimes. Let the hammer of Thor fall on both of them.
1939
(1,683 posts)Most gun shows now police their parking lots. They require all long arms to be cased or covered in transit to and from the show. The try their best to prevent parking lot transfers and "lot lizards" soliciting from gun owners.
Scottforms
(1 post)Gosh....just think how safe we will all be if everyone 16 years and older are issued, trained, and required to carry a Glock. Everyone will be extremely polite. Problem solved.
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)peapodsss
(33 posts)it would actually be called 'the person to person transaction loophole' because it does not need to happen at a gunshow, and yes it should be closed.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)over a table and sell away to yahoos attracted to such stuff. I think it boils down to the definition of "being in the business" of selling/trafficking guns. It allows the infrequent dealers to sell without a background check. I do not believe it is allowed in all states.
No gun transfer -- even to a family member -- should be made without a background check, and those checks should be toughened up.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)an Iraqi War veteran, borrow a .30-06 hunting rifle from me at deer camp?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)not likely a hunter is a different story. I don't believe the Iraqi War Veteran means they aren't a risk if they believe they need a gun to walk down the street. This isn't a war zone.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)The talking points on the other side are getting so worn out.
peapodsss
(33 posts)one only has to spend a few minutes on this site to see some people wanting all guns banned. Not even Australia has banned all guns.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)1- open NICS to private sales. That's a good solution to everybody except the rabid anti-gunners who don't actually want background checks, but want to use the idea of background checks to create a system that is onerous and adds more hassle and expense to achieve the same ends.
The arguement you can't open NICS to private sales because people may not use t is nonsense- if a person won't use NICS when it's privately available then they are even less likely to do a more expensive and burdensome method like travel roam gun dealer during business hours, wait their turn and pay $35-50 per gun for the exact same check. There is no need to turn what should be a simp smartphone app or phone call into a 30 minute-2 hour hassle that costs $35-50.
2.- Agreed on mandatory safety training- not just for gun owners, but for everyone. Doing it in the 6-7th grade elect in schools is the most logical way to do this. Just requiring i of gun owners won't reduce accidents much, if at all. Especially since a large percentage have already had it in the form of CCW class and/or mandatory hunter education classes in most states.
3- It wouldn't pay for misuse or criminal activity even if mandated, so what is the pint unless you just want to hit gun owners with a fee- and likely if you did this it would be struck down using the same Constitutional logic that poll taxes are struck down with- you can't make a person pay to exercise a right.
4- California just had their waiting period law destroyed by the courts. And since waiting period laws are proven to be worthless at fighting crime and just serve as feel-good measures, there is no valid reason to push for them.
5- another feel-good idea that won't really change much. Several states have it now, notably Illinois, and it seems to have zero effect on crime.
6- I'm all for stiff penalties for breaking the law- but we haven't even tried stuff penalties or serious prosecution rates for the laws we have now, so unless you change that first any new laws will be equally uneneforced.
You can't get the BATFE and US attorney's offices to care about or go after prohibited persons who commit perjury on the background check forms illegally trying to buy guns now, or to go after and acre about straw purchasers. If they don't care now and don't prosecute known violations now why do you think the new laws will be any different?
madokie
(51,076 posts)put insurance on my dam golf card that I mostly use to forage for mushrooms so yes I say make them put insurance on their guns and all the other things you mention
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)I can get on board with all of these.