Build Your own Gun Laws : What would YOU do ?

[james_bond_007]

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 :

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 ?

[Great-Kazoo]

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 :

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 ?

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]

I thought this was going to be a thread about laws concerning building your own guns.

[spqrzilla]

We have more knife violence in this country than many other countries too. Maybe that's a clue.

[Ronin13]

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.

[wreave]

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.

[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.

[OneGuy67]

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.