Won't happen any time soon, of course, but licensing and registration of handguns would get us to the minimum level of gun control in the rest of the developed world, where gun violence is a tiny fraction of what we have here in the US.

I hope Bernie will listen to us!

But, like many other things Bernie is proposing, despite being politically infeasible at the moment, handgun registration is supported by a majority of Americans.

So if the registration is impossible with all the paranoia about "gun grabbing", what about forgetting JUST that and going with what is on my list...

Do you think at least THOSE would be possible?

Increases on minimum sentences might also happen, because Republicans like putting people in jail. Assault weapons ban doubtful, and even if it does pass it will include enough loopholes to make it ineffective. Waiting periods, not gonna happen.

The other big problem is that the NRA doesn't just oppose legislation, it also puts loopholes in laws and then does the best it can to hinder enforcement. They basically get down into the technicalities to make sure that there no impediments to anyone, crazy or not, buying any and as many guns as they want, at any time, from anyone.

One example of this are laws against straw purchases -- this is when one person with a clean record buys a gun for someone else, presumably with a criminal record. This is technically illegal, but the problem is the actual law being violated is the one against lying on the gun purchase form when you check the box that says "this gun is for me." It turns out that this law is very hard to prosecute, it doesn't have accompanying language about "conspiracy" and the like that gives prosecutors additional tools, it doesn't carry any minimum sentence, and so a lot of these cases don't make it to court. Of course, when people bring this up, for example when an anti-gun-trafficking statute was proposed in response to the tens of thousands of guns trafficked into Mexico's drug wars via straw purchases from US dealers, the NRA will simply say "that's already illegal, just enforce the laws on the books."

In summary, gun control in the US is a total disaster.

But I have a question I really want to ask you, as a Hillary supporter,

If there were only one or two on the list I gave that you WISH Bernie would support, which would they be?

I'd like your honest opinion so I can give him my feedback.

Not just online and at gun shows, but everywhere -- anytime you buy a gun from anyone, you need to have a background check. And I think Bernie already supports this, the only question is whether he would put political capital into it.

If I had to choose a number 2, it would be something not on your list, which is improving enforcement, funding for the ATF, etc. The NRA is right that we have to enforce the laws we have, but of course they try to prevent that at every turn.

And I also think at least talking about licensing and registration is important. I think it's great he's talking about things like single payer, free college, etc. even though they stand little chance of passing, it's at least getting it into the conversation. It would be nice to have handgun registration be part of the conversation. In fact, an outright ban on handguns like they have in the UK should also be part of the conversation -- a handgun ban is basically the gun control equivalent of single payer, whereas handgun registration is kind of like Obamacare on the scale.

It's wonderful.

And I'm glad to hear you say that you recognize that Sanders already supports SOME of the things on the list.

BTW, has Hillary ever said she is for an outright ban on handguns like they have in the UK or Japan?

Hillary is a bit better than Bernie on gun control -- for example, she was in favor of the Brady bill, and she didn't support that horrible law giving the gun industry partial immunity from civil lawsuits. But in terms of policy, she's not going to go much further than the things on your list (if she even gets to the whole list, or any of it).

The practical difference between Hillary and Bernie on this issue is that Hillary is more likely to make it a priority. I'm not sure how much of a priority though. She also might be more aggressive on the enforcement front.

I wonder if he's ever said anything at all on this subject?

Its amazing isn't it?

to actually constitute a plan that might include your suggestions and even more based on reason and not in reaction to an tragic event. We have far too many bad laws based upon reactions after an event.

Bernie is great at looking at what works in other countries and I have no doubt he will take our suggestions and come up with something even better.

I think the demand part is what is upsetting some. Bernie had perfectly good reasons for not supporting holding gun manufactures responsible for those that used their weapons for purposes unintended. It would have made a poor law and probably been overturned.

Bernie has always supported logical gun control and I am sure he would like to see more done. Vermont does have hunters and even those of us that find hunting deplorable (mainly because we don't have to kill the meat we still eat) should admit that talking about gun control concerns even those that do actually do so for food.

And there are those that fear that fear that we are trying to take the only protection from both government and criminals they feel they have away. It really isn't so far fetched in rural society to think that a gun offers some protection.

I think we can satisfy both groups by vastly limiting handguns and automatic weapons. By vastly, I mean even the majority of law enforcement as has been done quite effectively in civilized countries.

First of all, it wouldn't have been a "poor law and probably been overturned" because Bernie didn't vote against some new law increasing liability for gun manufacturers. He voted for a new law that carved out a specific exemption for the gun industry that didn't apply to any other industry. It was the NRA's top legislative priority at the time, and as a result the gun industry doesn't have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

And why did he do that? Because lawsuits were being filed by groups and municipalities holding gun manufacturers accountable for knowingly and even intentionally profiting by fueling criminal activity. Basically, their business practices increased gun violence, and they either knew this or should have known this, but they continued doing it because it made them money. It's similar to banks creating products and services that facilitate money laundering, or someone creating an online marketplace that is used primarily for drug dealing.

The reason the NRA wanted the immunity so badly is not that the lawsuits were frivolous, but that they were succeeding. For example, Smith and Wesson settled a big case and agreed to change their business practices. The "frivolous lawsuit" talking point, and the "you don't sue Ford if someone runs you over" talking points are totally misleading.

Not that i don't trust you but...

Here's a link to an article about the Smith and Wesson settlement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/18/us/gun-makers-see-betrayal-in-decision-by-smith-wesson.html

Here's the wiki page of the immunity law that Bernie voted for, so you can see that it was a vote for gun industry immunity rather than a vote against some new law targeting the gun industry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

An article about the law's passage, which was mostly party line with some Dems crossing over, and was celebrated by the NRA and Tom DeLay while Ted Kennedy called it shameful.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/congress-passes-new-legal-shield-for-gun-industry.html
A few more articles.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/05/opinion/la-oe-schiff-nra-liability-shield-20130205
http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/24/why-is-congress-protecting-the-gun-industry/

Okay so it wasn't a new law but a law to get rid of a bad and probably (or should be) unconstitutional law. How the heck can you hold gun manufacturers responsible for the wrongful use of their products?

I am against allowing hand-guns altogether but certainly agree with Bernie that if they are lawful, you can't hold them responsible for those using their products for illegal purposes.

Bernie's argument is perfectly rational and it doesn't preclude him form wanting more gun legislation. He would just like it to be rational and Constitutional. Banning hand guns altogether would be. Is any candidate for that?

system that still applies to every corporation that doesn't sell guns. This was a special exemption for the gun industry.

The fact of the matter is, you can hold corporations in cases of product misuse. Product misuse does not mean an automatic liability exemption, nor should it. And, if the people who wrote this law think it should, as a matter of legal principle, then they should have made the law cover all industries, not just guns.

The mistake that critics of this law make is assuming that, before this law passed, gun companies were automatically liable anytime anyone did anything wrong with a gun. That's not true at all. You don't automatically win lawsuits, and there certainly wasn't any law on the books saying everytime someone got shot, it's the gun industry's fault. You only win if you have a good case, and on the other hand, if you file a frivolous lawsuit, then not only will you lose, but you will also have to pay the defendant's legal costs. But the lawsuits that this law through out of court were not frivolous, and the evidence of this is that they were succeeding.

There's nothing remotely unconstitutional about civil liability lawsuits. Again, if there were, then some of the lawsuits being filed could have been appealed to the Supreme Court, but that didn't happen because there were no constitutional questions whatsoever.

Any great progressive SHOULD support this list.

It would be great to be able to see who does and doesn't.

I plan to follow up later with a new OP on the subject!

We can't let our candidates "slide....."

The same old it doesn't work gun control shit?

No thanks.

It's a dumb law, it doesn't do what people think it does, and it distracts from actually important issues like handgun registration and universal background checks.

I don't care what shape a rifle's grip has, or whether it has a bayonet lug. Rifles aren't the problem, and when they are the problem the shape of their grip isn't the problem, and their capability of holding a bayonet isn't the problem. The Sandy Hook shooter's rifle was legal under the AWB. It would have been legal under the proposed new AWB if the manufacturer designed the handgrip slightly differently. We need to drop this because it's both a bad idea and politically damaging.

Or if we do want to go forward with it, actually just try to ban semi-autos with detachable magazines which is what most activists think the AWB is to begin with and anyways polls better nationally than the AWB.

Honestly I think the the full semi-auto ban polls better because it's more honest. The AWB was always an attempt to hoodwink activists by making them think they were banning machine guns, and makes Democrats look either dishonest or ignorant. A semi-auto ban -- for all the political challenges it faces -- at least has some basis in the actual engineering.

Make a cheaper FFL available that doesn't allow people to resell weapons and require it for purchases of handguns (including revolvers? not sure) and semi-automatic rifles or shotguns with external magazines.

I saw what you did there...

That's the only foot holding to the fire on the subject I'm interested in but as it isn't a significant priority then the sleeping dog may lie.

It's important that we stay on Bernie about this!