View Full Version : Build Your own Gun Laws : What would YOU do ?
james_bond_007
12-26-2012, 20:34
It is just a matter of time before SOME form of new legislation rolls along to attempt to reduce Gun Violence and unnecessary firearms-related deaths.
It is not likely that any of us will have much influence, in a first hand fashion.
We can ALL express our opinions to our legislators, and hopefully influence them to support our positions. But this only offers our influence in a 2nd hand fashion.
It is a fact that the US has more Gun Violence issues than any of us would like to see occur (I won't even TRY to quote statistics...let's just say that ANY Gun Violence issue is one too many).
Any time a Gun Violence issue occurs, it just hurts the rest of the firearms community, who have come to enjoy, respect, and safely use firearms, year-after-year, WITHOUT any incidents.
There are a lot of knowledgeable and diverse (culturally, occupationally, economically, etc.) forum members here with opinions on this subject.
I'd like to pose some hypothetical questions.
WHAT IF :
You, personally, were asked to offer a list of "problems" that you feel contribute to Gun Violence. What would be on your list and how would you rank them in priority to be "fixed/addressed"?
You, personally, were asked to offer a strategy to help reduce the Gun Violence issues in the US. What would you suggest be done ? What would you do first ?
You, personally, were asked to compromise some of the smaller existing privileges in order to preserve the other more important ones.
(We all know that if we were in a position to negotiate, there would have to be some give and take. We would not get EVERYTHING we wanted. )
What would you be willing TO and NOT TO give up ?
NOTE: The question is "How to reduce Gun Violence in the USA". The suggestions for fixes may not likely be all firearms related.
If the tragedies that have occurred, had not occurred with firearms being involved, but with other means, they would still be tragic, nonetheless. Many of the "root causes" would, however, probably be more likely to be identified, rather than being masked by an attempt to control the method used (i.e. firearms).
So...what would you do if you, personally, could do something ?
Great-Kazoo
12-26-2012, 20:40
It is just a matter of time before SOME form of new legislation rolls along to attempt to reduce Gun Violence and unnecessary firearms-related deaths.
It is not likely that any of us will have much influence, in a first hand fashion.
We can ALL express our opinions to our legislators, and hopefully influence them to support our positions. But this only offers our influence in a 2nd hand fashion.
It is a fact that the US has more Gun Violence issues than any of us would like to see occur (I won't even TRY to quote statistics...let's just say that ANY Gun Violence issue is one too many).
Any time a Gun Violence issue occurs, it just hurts the rest of the firearms community, who have come to enjoy, respect, and safely use firearms, year-after-year, WITHOUT any incidents.
There are a lot of knowledgeable and diverse (culturally, occupationally, economically, etc.) forum members here with opinions on this subject.
I'd like to pose some hypothetical questions.
WHAT IF :
You, personally, were asked to offer a list of "problems" that you feel contribute to Gun Violence. What would be on your list and how would you rank them in priority to be "fixed/addressed"?
You, personally, were asked to offer a strategy to help reduce the Gun Violence issues in the US. What would you suggest be done ? What would you do first ?
You, personally, were asked to compromise some of the smaller existing privileges in order to preserve the other more important ones.
(We all know that if we were in a position to negotiate, there would have to be some give and take. We would not get EVERYTHING we wanted. )
What would you be willing TO and NOT TO give up ?
NOTE: The question is "How to reduce Gun Violence in the USA". The suggestions for fixes may not likely be all firearms related.
If the tragedies that have occurred, had not occurred with firearms being involved, but with other means, they would still be tragic, nonetheless. Many of the "root causes" would, however, probably be more likely to be identified, rather than being masked by an attempt to control the method used (i.e. firearms).
So...what would you do if you, personally, could do something ?
MANDATORY SENTENCING
IN NY they have a revolving door policy with gun arrest. I know for a FACT a felon arrested on monday morn and arrainged the same day is back on the street by tuesday morning the latest. This FELON (repeat BTW) was in possession of a firearm along with drugs and let go. NUMEROUS TIMES.
IF YOU WANT TO TALK TOUGH ON CRIME STAND BEHIND YOUR WORDS MAYOR BLOOMBUG
SAME FOR EVERY TOUGH GUN LAW LEGISLATOR
Sharpienads
12-26-2012, 21:05
I thought this was going to be a thread about laws concerning building your own guns.
spqrzilla
12-26-2012, 21:17
We have more knife violence in this country than many other countries too. Maybe that's a clue.
As controversial as this may be- we should have ONE new law regarding guns/criminals- they should know that they can't purchase a gun (got this idea from Penn Jillette), if you're a felon and you attempt to purchase a firearm (not just denied for whatever reason, because my brother has been denied in the past and then cleared it up and could buy), you shouldn't be told 'no' then be allowed to just walk away. I'm not a lawyer or legislator, so I'm not sure what you could punish them with, but I'd say something to the effect of community service and/or probation or something.
This isn't going to be a popular opinion here, but I would support a Colorado-style instant check law to be spread nationwide. Colorado's instant check includes mental health, which the national check does not. I would also support requiring background check before all transfers, including private party. Yes, I know that will get me flamed on here. But I can see the transfers that take place, and "peek at your CO DL" does not support our cause. It does not help the law-abiding, gun-owning public to exhibit such trust when there are many people out there who are prohibited from owning guns, who just buy them private party from people who put on the blinders and pretend not to care.
The instant check law should include prosecution of people who are prohibited from owning a gun that try to buy one anyway. Our current system is: 1) try it, see if you get approved; 2) buy one private party. I doubt any of you would support arming people who are legally prohibited from owning a gun, but that's what occurring. Let's be smart.
The instant check system must include sufficient funding and staff to avoid the de facto waiting period we're currently experiencing. That's not okay, and we must make our voices heard.
Lost or stolen firearms must be reported to the police promptly. This is to keep the unethical person from selling a gun and just waiting to say, "Oh yeah, that was stolen" if it ever comes back to bite them.
This will not be terribly popular on this board or in some elements of the gun-owning community, but it is very likely to have a positive impact on both gun violence and the national perspective on gun owners. The current system makes it far too easy for people to get guns that aren't supposed to have them. We can do better.
On the flip side, we should eliminate gun free zones in all public buildings, except those with metal detectors and armed security. Yes, including schools (obviously). Private property may continue to post as they do now, but NOT facilities that count as "places of public accommodation".
Concealed carry permits should be shall-issue on a system similar to Colorado's, obviously with reciprocity.
Criminals who commit assault or other crimes should be prosecuted. I'm tired of hearing, "commit a crime with a gun and go to jail". How about "commit a crime and go to jail"? What does the instrument matter? Negligence, drunk driving, and other vehicular assaults should be no different from assaults with a gun or a knife or a baseball bat.
I don't think this "gives up" anything. Making the system work isn't giving up. In Colorado, we "closed the gun show loophole" and it was fine (except for this weekend, due to the general panic, which is causing a massive, unprecedented cluster fuck). They should do it nationally, and we should do the same with private party sales.
No "Good time" for people sentenced for
Committing crimes involving a gun. If you commit any crime and a firearm is involved you must serve the entire length of your sentence.
Security requirements. Owners of firearms must keep them secured at all times. This would be difficult to enforce however one way to enforce it would be to also pass a law making a firearms owner responsible for any crime committed with their weapon in the event that the firearm owner can not provide proof that the firearm was properly secured. This law may very well have prevented the Newtown shooting, it would have also prevented the Oregon mall shooting.
I would not oppose a training requirement for firearm ownership. The days of parents taking their kids out and teaching them to use a weapon are long gone. While some parents do still teach their kids many dont and many people end up buying guns they have no idea how to operate. My parents are anti gun and I was one of those people at one time.
I also support the idea of having a firearms safety/hunter safety course be made a part of high school curriculum. There are many people who hate guns and will not teach their children about guns as a result. There are also a lot
Of irresponsible gun owners who allow their kids to have free reign of their fire arms. In the event that a child goes into a home where there are unrestricted firearms that child should know how to act responsibly around those guns. This class would also be sufficient to meet the training requirement for firearm ownership once the child reaches legal age to purchase a firearm.
Security requirements. Owners of firearms must keep them secured at all times. This would be difficult to enforce however one way to enforce it would be to also pass a law making a firearms owner responsible for any crime committed with their weapon in the event that the firearm owner can not provide proof that the firearm was properly secured. This law may very well have prevented the Newtown shooting, it would have also prevented the Oregon mall shooting.
I'll only address this point... Define "Properly secured" for us please? I don't have a safe, but my house is locked. Is that properly secured? Or would it require us gun owners to all go out and get a gun safe? Would we no longer be allowed to have the pistol on the bedside table? What about the bedside 12GA? I doubt I'd be able to swiftly pop open the latest and greatest of gun safes in a timely manner at 2AM when someone crashes through my window intent on nefarious things and I need my gun the most... I see this as a bit of a slippery slope... and I'm opposed to wreave's idea on F2F sales requiring a BGC- especially now... 10 day wait!? GFY panic buyers!
XC700116
12-27-2012, 13:21
Security requirements. Owners of firearms must keep them secured at all times. This would be difficult to enforce however one way to enforce it would be to also pass a law making a firearms owner responsible for any crime committed with their weapon in the event that the firearm owner can not provide proof that the firearm was properly secured. This law may very well have prevented the Newtown shooting, it would have also prevented the Oregon mall shooting.
Define secured.
Here's my point, I live alone, no wife, SO, or kids. I have a gun safe that most of my guns live in at all times when not in use. This excludes the one in my night stand, and my EDC gun which is on my dresser when not on me. If I'm going someplace I can't carry it, it lives in the center console of my truck and the truck is locked. If someone is getting a hold of my guns, they are breaking and entering to do it, both the truck and the house have security systems. Yet under many state and local laws (other states and locales) I'd be in violation because they aren't in a safe 24/7, which defeats the purpose of having them, and I'd be held liable for a crime committed with one of my weapons if they were stolen (the night stand, dresser, or console of the truck). This is the glaring problem with this "keep them secured or else" type of law. There's only so much you can do and if someone is willing to break into my home or truck to steal my guns, then they are the ones committing the crime and I should in no way be able to be held liable for it.
Not to mention they would have to completely blow 4th amendment rights out of the water to proactively enforce it. And it wouldn't have prevented either shooting, it would have just made the gun owner go to jail after the fact. Just because there's a law that says you have to do this or that with your weapon, doesn't mean people are going to do it. That literally is the exact same flaw of reasoning that they are using saying that a gun free zone will prevent these incidents, if the perpetrator of such a crime is willing to break about a dozen laws in the process, another one isn't going to stop anything.
OneGuy67
12-27-2012, 13:25
As controversial as this may be- we should have ONE new law regarding guns/criminals- they should know that they can't purchase a gun (got this idea from Penn Jillette), if you're a felon and you attempt to purchase a firearm (not just denied for whatever reason, because my brother has been denied in the past and then cleared it up and could buy), you shouldn't be told 'no' then be allowed to just walk away. I'm not a lawyer or legislator, so I'm not sure what you could punish them with, but I'd say something to the effect of community service and/or probation or something.
This one point is an interesting issue that I've tried to deal with before. I have tried to prosecute a felon who lied on the federal form 4473 in order to obtain a firearm and was denied. The local DA wouldn't take the case as he believed it was a federal issue due to lying on a federal form; the federal prosecutor wouldn't take the case as it didn't satisfy their minimum threshold for prosecution. So what is the local LE to do other than be blamed by the likes of Rich Wyatt for not doing anything about that issue? It would take a revamping of our current system and to have state level forms instead of federal level forms, state level control over federal control to change the environment. California requires state forms ON TOP of the federal forms for certain purchases. We may be right there shortly, depending upon what the Dems propose this legislative session.
XC700116
12-27-2012, 13:35
This isn't going to be a popular opinion here, but I would support a Colorado-style instant check law to be spread nationwide. Colorado's instant check includes mental health, which the national check does not. I would also support requiring background check before all transfers, including private party. Yes, I know that will get me flamed on here. But I can see the transfers that take place, and "peek at your CO DL" does not support our cause. It does not help the law-abiding, gun-owning public to exhibit such trust when there are many people out there who are prohibited from owning guns, who just buy them private party from people who put on the blinders and pretend not to care..
I think most of us that deal with FTF on PP guns would be willing to take this step, if we could get access to the NICS or CBI without having to go to an FFL and pay for it. Something like a 1 time fee of $100 or something for a ID and passcode access to the system from our own computer, and then just fill out a standard form similar to a 4473 to run through and retain for record. This wouldn't be making everyone an FFL, but giving us access to the system for PP sales only, and not allow shipment of firearms into and out of state, or anything that we currently have to go through an FFL for. Not that I would mind if it did allow all powers of an FFL, but I'm also realistic enough to believe that the FFL's need to be able to hold onto that for business viability, and I'm OK with that.
This isn't going to be a popular opinion here, but I would support a Colorado-style instant check law to be spread nationwide. Colorado's instant check includes mental health, which the national check does not. I would also support requiring background check before all transfers, including private party. Yes, I know that will get me flamed on here. But I can see the transfers that take place, and "peek at your CO DL" does not support our cause. It does not help the law-abiding, gun-owning public to exhibit such trust when there are many people out there who are prohibited from owning guns, who just buy them private party from people who put on the blinders and pretend not to care.
The instant check law should include prosecution of people who are prohibited from owning a gun that try to buy one anyway. Our current system is: 1) try it, see if you get approved; 2) buy one private party. I doubt any of you would support arming people who are legally prohibited from owning a gun, but that's what occurring. Let's be smart.
The instant check system must include sufficient funding and staff to avoid the de facto waiting period we're currently experiencing. That's not okay, and we must make our voices heard.
Lost or stolen firearms must be reported to the police promptly. This is to keep the unethical person from selling a gun and just waiting to say, "Oh yeah, that was stolen" if it ever comes back to bite them.
This will not be terribly popular on this board or in some elements of the gun-owning community, but it is very likely to have a positive impact on both gun violence and the national perspective on gun owners. The current system makes it far too easy for people to get guns that aren't supposed to have them. We can do better.
On the flip side, we should eliminate gun free zones in all public buildings, except those with metal detectors and armed security. Yes, including schools (obviously). Private property may continue to post as they do now, but NOT facilities that count as "places of public accommodation".
Concealed carry permits should be shall-issue on a system similar to Colorado's, obviously with reciprocity.
Criminals who commit assault or other crimes should be prosecuted. I'm tired of hearing, "commit a crime with a gun and go to jail". How about "commit a crime and go to jail"? What does the instrument matter? Negligence, drunk driving, and other vehicular assaults should be no different from assaults with a gun or a knife or a baseball bat.
I don't think this "gives up" anything. Making the system work isn't giving up. In Colorado, we "closed the gun show loophole" and it was fine (except for this weekend, due to the general panic, which is causing a massive, unprecedented cluster fuck). They should do it nationally, and we should do the same with private party sales.
So you advocate registration of all firearms? That would be the only way to make this scheme work.
Registration precedes confiscation 100% of the time, historically.
Restricting the rights of the law abiding does not solve the problem of criminals that will ignore the law anyway. DC, NY, CA, and Chicago prove that beyond a doubt. Background checks, waiting periods, purchase limits, cosmetic restrictions, and other encumbrances only affect those that are concerned with obeying the law in the first place.
If I could put one law (or the enforcement of 1 current law) into full effect, it would be mandatory prosecution with significant sentencing(or enchancement, in the case of a new felony using a firearm) for prior felons either found in possession of a firearm or attempting to purchase the same. If they get sentenced to 20 years for a crime using a firearm, they serve 7305 days, not one minute less.
This one point is an interesting issue that I've tried to deal with before. I have tried to prosecute a felon who lied on the federal form 4473 in order to obtain a firearm and was denied. The local DA wouldn't take the case as he believed it was a federal issue due to lying on a federal form; the federal prosecutor wouldn't take the case as it didn't satisfy their minimum threshold for prosecution. So what is the local LE to do other than be blamed by the likes of Rich Wyatt for not doing anything about that issue? It would take a revamping of our current system and to have state level forms instead of federal level forms, state level control over federal control to change the environment. California requires state forms ON TOP of the federal forms for certain purchases. We may be right there shortly, depending upon what the Dems propose this legislative session.
CRS 18-12-108 covers possession, but doesn't address attempted purchase. Perhaps we can get Looper to settle for making state law more effective, instead of passing do-nothing feel-good bullshit...
WHAT IF :
You, personally, were asked to offer a list of "problems" that you feel contribute to Gun Violence. What would be on your list and how would you rank them in priority to be "fixed/addressed"?
You, personally, were asked to offer a strategy to help reduce the Gun Violence issues in the US. What would you suggest be done ? What would you do first ?
You, personally, were asked to compromise some of the smaller existing privileges in order to preserve the other more important ones.
(We all know that if we were in a position to negotiate, there would have to be some give and take. We would not get EVERYTHING we wanted. )
What would you be willing TO and NOT TO give up ?
NOTE: The question is "How to reduce Gun Violence in the USA". The suggestions for fixes may not likely be all firearms related.
If the tragedies that have occurred, had not occurred with firearms being involved, but with other means, they would still be tragic, nonetheless. Many of the "root causes" would, however, probably be more likely to be identified, rather than being masked by an attempt to control the method used (i.e. firearms).
So...what would you do if you, personally, could do something ?
This isn't just about gun violence, it is about violence. We're just focused on a common tool.
I would start with very harsh sentences for anyone convicted of a violent crime. To free up prison space for this, nonviolent drug convictions would be reduced (there are better ways to deal with drug addiction than jail). This deals with people who are known to be violent.
Finding people who may become violent, I see no good way to do it. Proposals here quickly devolve into thought crime.
Affirm peoples right to defend themselves. Expand CC laws to everywhere where there is not armed security at secure entrances.
As for what I would give up?
Face to Face sales without a background check. If there was a way setup that would make it quick and convenient to verify a buyer it would be acceptable. No records kept, seller is never recorded anywhere. I have ideas on this but not going to go into them now. Note that using existing checks or requiring a FFL is not quick or convenient.
Yes criminals would ignore the law but someone not wanting to be checked would be a big red flag to most of us. One path for guns to reach criminals would be cut off.
What would I not give up?
Actual bans on anything.
I think most of us that deal with FTF on PP guns would be willing to take this step, if we could get access to the NICS or CBI without having to go to an FFL and pay for it. Something like a 1 time fee of $100 or something for a ID and passcode access to the system from our own computer, and then just fill out a standard form similar to a 4473 to run through and retain for record. This wouldn't be making everyone an FFL, but giving us access to the system for PP sales only, and not allow shipment of firearms into and out of state, or anything that we currently have to go through an FFL for. Not that I would mind if it did allow all powers of an FFL, but I'm also realistic enough to believe that the FFL's need to be able to hold onto that for business viability, and I'm OK with that.
My idea for this is that a person can pay $10 and get a standard NICS background check run on themselves. they get a card valid for 1 year with their picture on it. someone could call in, enter a number on the card and get the name read back to them (or via text) to verify it is valid. This is all you would need for a F2F sale. no records kept per purchase, seller never recorded, gun details never recorded. A Valid CC permit would also be acceptable.
This puts everything on the buyer. Allowing private access to the background check database could be a privacy risk, not sure it would be the best way to go. The issue with this is it is one small step from a gun license. Keeping it separate from FFL transferred stuff reduces that risk a bit.
Edit:
This wouldn't even have to be mandatory to be useful. If it is cheap enough and easy enough to get, people may well just get it.
Sharpienads
12-27-2012, 15:05
I would make a law stating that infringing on the right of an individual to keep and bear arms is illegal.
Oh, wait...
So you advocate registration of all firearms? That would be the only way to make this scheme work.
Registration precedes confiscation 100% of the time, historically.
Restricting the rights of the law abiding does not solve the problem of criminals that will ignore the law anyway. DC, NY, CA, and Chicago prove that beyond a doubt. Background checks, waiting periods, purchase limits, cosmetic restrictions, and other encumbrances only affect those that are concerned with obeying the law in the first place.
If I could put one law (or the enforcement of 1 current law) into full effect, it would be mandatory prosecution with significant sentencing(or enchancement, in the case of a new felony using a firearm) for prior felons either found in possession of a firearm or attempting to purchase the same. If they get sentenced to 20 years for a crime using a firearm, they serve 7305 days, not one minute less.
Background check =/= registration. Didn't we all have this discussion when the national instant check law was passed?
There has to also be a requirement that thefts be promptly reported. This prevents the "Oh, yeah, I forgot... that one got stolen a while back" defense. Otherwise, yeah, if a gun that you were last purchaser of turns up in a crime, and you never reported it stolen, then you can expect some questions that you're not going to want to answer without an attorney present.
As to the person who suggested there be some kind of $100 license that allows you access to the system to be able to run background checks for your own sales... if you're selling that many, you may want to get an FFL. Or make good friends with one who will do your transfers cheaply.
I would make a law stating that infringing on the right of an individual to keep and bear arms is illegal.
Oh, wait...
Well that's a novel thought.
OneGuy67
12-27-2012, 15:40
You CAN do your own background checks, although limited only to violations in Colorado, if you really desire to do so. www.CBIrecordscheck.com . $6.85 per check or you can get an account. Just need a name and a date of birth.
Background check =/= registration. Didn't we all have this discussion when the national instant check law was passed?
There has to also be a requirement that thefts be promptly reported. This prevents the "Oh, yeah, I forgot... that one got stolen a while back" defense. Otherwise, yeah, if a gun that you were last purchaser of turns up in a crime, and you never reported it stolen, then you can expect some questions that you're not going to want to answer without an attorney present.
As to the person who suggested there be some kind of $100 license that allows you access to the system to be able to run background checks for your own sales... if you're selling that many, you may want to get an FFL. Or make good friends with one who will do your transfers cheaply.
Being able to track sales/disposition of a firearm to the "last purchaser" is a de facto registration scheme. It presupposes a database tying the firearm to purchase records. So no, a background check does not equal registration, but penalties for failure to report a transfer/sale/theft do. The current NICS background check is NOT tied to a particular firearm, but the purchaser only, and thus creates no trackable chain of custody for a particular gun.A serial number trace goes to the FFL that filled out the 4473 and maybe the initial purchaser. Some good detective work might be able to tie that to a given NICS approval. Any program that ties a weapon to the owner by serial number is a registration scheme, which is one step from confiscation. No thank you.
Byte Stryke
12-27-2012, 16:02
how about we start with rebuilding criminal punishments.
Prison is a joke to most criminals, a fricking vacation.
Make time fit the crime.
Abolish parole boards
Impose "Danger to society" Sentence extensions for persons fitting.
Mental health. There should never be a bed unavailable if the person is deemed a danger to him/herself or others.
better tracking/registration and care for persons with mental health issues.
and if you are deemed a danger to society that you are isolated from it.
eadgbe194
12-27-2012, 16:05
I would make a law stating that infringing on the right of an individual to keep and bear arms is illegal.
Oh, wait...
Exactly! Shall not be infringed. Period.
james_bond_007
12-28-2012, 09:26
... I have tried to prosecute a felon who lied on the federal form 4473 in order to obtain a firearm and was denied...
I'd like to offer my thanks for at least TRYING to do the right thing.[Beer]
I'm sorry the authorities were not more cooperative.
To another point, any chance this guy would TRY to buy a firearm FTF after being denied by an FFL? (add sarcasm here)
In FTF transactions it is hard to tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys", even if you WANT to do the right thing.
After all, there is not a big "FELON" tag marked on a DL, or rotated DL like the "Under 21" licenses, to make it easy to identify them.
There is not, to my knowledge, even a more discrete way, to determine felons, like a publicly accessible online DB, as there is for sex offenders.
(The THOUGHT of something like that probably violates a former felon's "rights" in someway, right ?)
And in OneGuy67's case, when he COULD tell it was a "bad" guy, no one would HELP him do the right thing.
james_bond_007
12-28-2012, 09:33
I would make a law stating that infringing on the right of an individual to keep and bear arms is illegal. Oh, wait...
You get a RIMSHOT for that one[ROFL1]
(http://webtrax.hu/myfacewhen/lineart-memes/rimshot-troll-ba-dum-tss)http://webtrax.hu/myfacewhen/faces/lineart-memes/rimshot-troll-ba-dum-tss.jpg
(http://webtrax.hu/myfacewhen/lineart-memes/rimshot-troll-ba-dum-tss)
(http://webtrax.hu/myfacewhen/lineart-memes/rimshot-troll-ba-dum-tss)
buffalobo
12-28-2012, 10:08
how about we start with rebuilding criminal punishments.
Prison is a joke to most criminals, a fricking vacation.
Make time fit the crime.
Abolish parole boards
Impose "Danger to society" Sentence extensions for persons fitting.
Mental health. There should never be a bed unavailable if the person is deemed a danger to him/herself or others.
better tracking/registration and care for persons with mental health issues.
and if you are deemed a danger to society that you are isolated from it.
This^
If a person is deemed to not be safe possesing a weapon, either due to criminal activity or mental issues, they should not be out in public to begin with.
No "Good time" for people sentenced for
Committing crimes involving a gun. If you commit any crime and a firearm is involved you must serve the entire length of your sentence.
Security requirements. Owners of firearms must keep them secured at all times. This would be difficult to enforce however one way to enforce it would be to also pass a law making a firearms owner responsible for any crime committed with their weapon in the event that the firearm owner can not provide proof that the firearm was properly secured. This law may very well have prevented the Newtown shooting, it would have also prevented the Oregon mall shooting.
I would not oppose a training requirement for firearm ownership. The days of parents taking their kids out and teaching them to use a weapon are long gone. While some parents do still teach their kids many dont and many people end up buying guns they have no idea how to operate. My parents are anti gun and I was one of those people at one time.
I also support the idea of having a firearms safety/hunter safety course be made a part of high school curriculum. There are many people who hate guns and will not teach their children about guns as a result. There are also a lot of irresponsible gun owners who allow their kids to have free reign of their fire arms. In the event that a child goes into a home where there are unrestricted firearms that child should know how to act responsibly around those guns. This class would also be sufficient to meet the training requirement for firearm ownership once the child reaches legal age to purchase a firearm.
I'm all for your sentencing requirement.
I am totally against any law mandating securing of firearms. Yes, I believe gun owners should secure their firearms from theft and small children. However, there are a number of reasons why I'm against a law mandating this.
1) It's impractical. Many gun owners own one or two pistols for home protection and many of them probably can't afford a decent enough safe to secure it. Lock boxes will not keep a burglar out. Most of the low end safes are crap and we all know it.
2) There been many a documented case of kids home alone when a home invader broke in and was stopped with a firearm in the kids hands. If you have a gun in the house, smaller kids need to be taught to respect firearms and not to touch them, responsible older ones if they are taught to handle and shoot a gun safely, should know where the house gun is. An anecdote, my father always had loaded guns around the house for HD. Both my brother and I knew where they were and not to touch them. If we wanted to see them, we asked. My dad would then make the gun safe and hand it to us action open. When we were done, he would reload it and put it back. BTW, my father never took either of us shooting when we were kids.
Now I'll add this, the mother of the CT shooter should have had those guns in a safe (maybe she did, nothings come out about this). She definitely had the means (Alimony of $250K/year, IIRC) to purchase a decent one.
I am against a training requirement. For one it doesn't really address the issue at hand, violence. If this were a safety discussion or one about innocent bystanders getting shot, sure. I'll give you a last reason why I'm against it. Many people find themselves under threat (think obsessed ex, angry acquaintance, crazy stalker, crime victim) and go out and buy a gun to protect themselves. Should those people have to wait and risk being harmed or killed, in order to satisfy some useless requirement. Do I think that people should get some sort of training and safety, yes. Should the Govt require you to do so before exercising your right, hell no.
I'm not totally for or against a firearms safety course in high school. I have conflicting thoughts about this and I don't see how this could be a full semester course in HS. How long does it take to teach a safety course, 4-16 hrs?
OneGuy67
12-28-2012, 11:32
Thanks for the thoughts, James_3Bond, but I am a cop and I was trying to get a known felon charged and could not. It happens more often than you would think with prosecutions.
I have a great law... if your name is Diane Feinstein, you are to be deported ASAP.
Mountain Man
12-28-2012, 12:18
Here is my thought on it. Colorado doesn't need any more or really different gun laws.
We like many places have absolute crap for mental health care. We have one state mental health facility for those that are dangerous. It takes an act of god to get them there. Mental health care here absolutely sucks. I would change that.
The other thing is we need to hammer violent criminals. When they are convicted make them do their time. Along the front range its a joke. I have seen many get convicted of a serious felony get probation commit another felony and get another conviction and get probation again. really it didn't work the first time. I'm sure he is really sorry now. This continues and the same ahole that should have been in prison is still out and doing his thing until he is inconvenienced by getting caught again and it starts all over again.
I had no problem with project exile. I know RMGO hated it. I can tell you for a fact it worked. Drug dealers and bangers knew if they used a gun committing the crime they would get time and serve it. If you just committed the crime and didn't use a gun you would be back on the street. It actually made an impact on criminals and didn't affect law abiding citizen that I ever heard of or witnessed. I'm guessing that if you were law abiding you wouldn't be a felon in possession of a weapon and you probably weren't committing crimes, banging selling drugs etc.
To answer all of your questions you need to look inside the mind of a human being and understand the decision making process. While you go about your daily life, you make literally hundreds of choices. The thought develops in your conscious mind, triggers an impulse and then you perform an action. The process can get interrupted though, and most people have control of their actions. Think about that feeling when you are standing at the top of a cliff and you can feel that sinking feeling in your stomach as it feels like it is pulling you over, like you are going to jump. Your mind has developed a thought and you feel the impulse to jump but your control over your action stops you because there is a consequence to the action that is a secondary effect to the impulse that you are feeling. Now to apply this to a criminal mind there are two scenarios:
1) The criminal does not fear the consequences of the actions they are about to take.
2) The criminal has no control of their mind and thereby no way to interrupt the impulse action stage.
Response to #1: From here it is clear to see that there is a problem much deeper than a simple modification of rules. This is why bans of any sort will not work. Where there is a will there is a way. I know that you have all heard that phrase, but think about it for a second. It should be clear that there are two operatives here to disrupt an action. You can kill the will, or control the means (way) to accomplish a task. It should be apparent to everyone on here that attacking the methods or means does little because there will always be another way to accomplish their will. So that means that the only solution for the rational criminal is to make the consequences outweigh the perceived benefits of their actions. Make them fear or respect the consequences of their actions and they will not commit the crime. It is that simple.
Response to #2: Obviously in this situation a person that has no control over their actions should not own a firearm for any reason. There are deep seeded psychological issues that are present that preclude any rational thought and for that there is little that we can do to change the way that people are. But how do you distinguish this person from another? The simple answer is that you can't. There is a grey area here that you really do not want to get into, because the tables can turn and people that should own guns could otherwise be deemed unfit, or it could be used as a metric to control who has firearms based on an outside influence. That is a dangerous road to walk. So then what this comes down to is we all need to do our part. Lock up your guns when you cannot protect them. Do not leave them in your car unattended. Do not go through with a private sale if you do not feel comfortable. Get a CCW and training so that if by chance you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, or right place at the right time (depending on how you look at it) you can take action and be the solution to an unsolvable problem where it surfaces. We as responsible gun owners need to 24/7 live the part to the best of our abilities. That is the only solution that I can think of.
You cannot legislate against the acts of a mad man, and you cannot protect people from their own devices by way of law. We need to grow up as a society and take responsibility for our actions and responsibility for our safety and livelihood. We only get one chance at a life worth living regardless of occupation, pay grade, religion or any other thread that makes us human. This is what our founding fathers meant when they created the constitution. But there are two sides; we need to live up to the constitution if we expect to enjoy its protections. Our society is crumbling and the lack of personal responsibility is the common thread. Enforce standing laws, and make the punishment severe enough to deter all but those inescapable of rational thought, then base our society off of the longstanding moral principals that should accompany all men that are created equal.
Damn Damninal, I wish you were giving that address to Congress, that was awesome
Nothing.. there is no need for any more gun laws. What we need is enforcement of current laws.
robertcolorado2009
12-28-2012, 15:57
As I have always said: You CANNOT legislate morality!
centrarchidae
12-28-2012, 21:30
I'd make it illegal to do violent stuff with guns.
Oh, wait...
Seriously, though, a ban on possession by people convicted of felonies or violent misdemeanors, but they can have their guns back if they've completed all probation/parole/supervised release and kept their nose clean for 5 years beyond that. And for people who have been committed (not the 72-hour evaluation, but the 90-day hold after that) or who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity, of a disqualifying crime. Although IMHO there should be a way to clear that as well, eventually, even if I don't know quite how I'd do it.
But IMHO most of the other "prohibited person" categories speak to people who are politically disfavored, rather than people who are a public safety problem.
And keep the present ban on possession by people under the influence. I don't care if someone is a "habitual user" of medicinal dank 99% of the time. I care a great deal whether he's armed while impaired right now.
Oh, and IMHO property owners should retain absolute authority to decide who does and does not get to be armed on their property.
And I'd extend MMD to fixed places of employment, and civil immunity to any self-defense case where the defender is not prosecuted for the murder/assault. We already have no duty to retreat in CO, so that at least does not need to be fixed.
(Needless to say, I'd repeal NFA 1934 in its entirety, and possibly all of GCA 1968. One doesn't belong at all and the other should, IMHO, be a state issue rather than Federal. Certainly, I would not keep the 4473 mandate.)
Repeal the 1934 and 1968 Acts and all other forms of registration and regulation. Criminals will always get weapons no reason to prohbit the sale of machine guns via mail.
Holger Danske
12-30-2012, 20:32
For schools, I like Sheriff Joe's idea of using the posse to staff armed volunteers in every school. The feds can kick in funds, but the sheriffs manage their folks. I would make available bullet proof vests and ccw training available to teachers and staff at their option. At a minimum, teachers and staff would be trained and required to carry tasers.
For other gun free zones, I would mandate armed guards to protected the unarmed populace. Additionally, I would consider fining media for excessive coverage of mass shooting, so as not to encourage others. Non compliance means they would lose their broadcasting privileges or have their printing presses and web sites shut down. For the excessive law suits I would limit lawyers to 5% of the verdict, because Im tired of hearing about the huge lawsuits where the lawyers win big.
Those that act on emotion want outcomes that are not logical and defy human nature. The genie is out of the bottle, there's no going back. It would be easier to make nuclear weapons go away, but we know that won't happen. The problem always comes down to who has the guns/nukes/fill-in-the-blank and their ideology.
How about enforcing the laws already on the books? That doesn't happen because enforcement doesn't make for the photo-op that the signing of a new law provides. Besides, enforcement takes money and resolve. We seem to have little of both. Those of us that are law-abiding also understand that a new law means nothing to those that don't obey them.
I keep hearing arguments about how the founders didn't mean semi-automatic AR-15s. Well, when the army was primarily armed with muskets, a number of the citizens owned superior rifles. This continued to when the army was still using single-shot rifles and the citizenry was armed with Henry and Winchester repeating rifles. A semi-automatic AR-15 is the modern musket and is out-gunned by the M4 and M-16 (true "assault weapons"). These same types of argued limitations about what the founders meant 230 years ago don't seem to fall on any of the other Constitutional 'Bill of Rights'. Freedom of the Press couldn't have included the Internet, right? ;-)
Since people have existed, there have always been crazy people, and it would be safe to assume there always will be. The idea that we should have an expectation of safety in this world is a modern phenomenon and defies nature. We are all responsible for our own safety. Being able to effectively use a firearm is a life skill whether it's used in self-defense, putting meat on the table, or maintaining your freedom.
Whenever the government gets involved in anything, they make the situation worse. There wasn't a "pre-existing condition" in health insurance until the government got involved in healthcare. The government has created free kill zones in these firearm free areas that survived for generations without making possession of firearms in those areas illegal.
The road to ruin is paved with good intentions. If most of the people are law-abiding good people, and everyone was armed, wouldn't the good and law-abiding prevail?
Additionally, I would consider fining media for excessive coverage of mass shooting, so as not to encourage others. Non compliance means they would lose their broadcasting privileges or have their printing presses and web sites shut down.
Wow, so the second amendment is okay with you but you would want to destroy the first?
This country, state or any local government do not need any new laws whatsoever. Violent crimes are already crimes.
I would change the sbr and suppressors laws. I would make it so we use our states bc. That would lower prices, don't think it would help stop gun violence, sorry my 2 cents didn't help any its just what I would change.
GreenScoutII
12-30-2012, 23:03
As a father of small children the same age as the victims of the Sandy Hook shooting, I can say this one started me thinking.
No, I don't believe any additional restrictions on firearms is the answer, but we need to do a much better job of controlling who is in possession of a firearm.
As such, we need to do a better job of identifying the crazy bastards who are inclined to do a thing like this. Put the crazies back into the assylums where they belong. Period.
As we all know, it was not a gun which perpetuated this atrocity, but rather one very deranged individual. Lock them up and the rest of us have a lot fewer problems........
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.