Build Your own Gun Laws : What would YOU do ?

[merl]

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.

[TFOGGER]

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.

[wreave]

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.

[TFOGGER]

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.

[BigDee]

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.

[Ronin13]

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]

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.

[Storm]

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?

[merl]

WHAT IF :

1. 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"?
2. 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 ?
3. 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.

[Sharpienads]

I would make a law stating that infringing on the right of an individual to keep and bear arms is illegal.

Oh, wait...