Here's an idea: If we can't get assault weapons banned, then buyers should have to pick up their
newly purchased assault weapon at their local police department. There, they would be interviewed and evaluated by a specially trained police officer, preferably a detective from their Homicide Department. That's all. No fingerprinting (although that would be nice). No official registering of the assault weapon (although THAT would be nice). Just an interview by someone with the training and experience to spot a nut job who should absolutely, positively NOT be allowed to purchase an assault weapon.
There would be no gun show loopholes. All assault weapons sold at a gun show would have to be delivered to the local police station for the purchaser to pick up at a later date and to undergo an interview with a police officer. And the same police department could do stings to catch people selling assault weapons online and attempting to deliver the assault weapon directly to the purchaser.
I think just the prospect of having to go to the police department to pick up their new assault weapon would deter many people from buying one.
I would, of course, rather see all assault rifles banned and make it so that all other guns would require registration and gun owners would need to pass a gun safety class to receive a license to own a gun, just like owning and driving a car. If we Democrats ever get a super-majority, those things would be possible. But these actions, apparently, are not possible as long as Senate Democrats can be blocked by Senate Republicans (and Manchin and Sinema, let's not forget those two gems).
Anyway, just trying to think of something, ANYTHING, that might possibly be possible. I know Republicans everywhere would be ALL up in arms (figuratively and literally) at my proposal, which they would see as anything but modest.
Anyway, . . . may God bless those babies and their teachers who died in Uvalde yesterday (and at Sandy Hook, and at . . .) and their grieving moms and dads and the rest of their family members.
that you have to own those weapons.
And make it prohibitively expensive per weapon.
cause a lot of damage among victims (not just the right, left, or independents, but all people), as well as damages to property, etc. Must pay a property tax on every gun owned by a person, it's only fair that they pick up the burden that this insane right to own guns is placing on the rest of us, why should we bear the costs (non-gun owners or those w/ a minimum number of guns, e.g., perhaps 1 or 2 at the most).
This idea has been proposed for years. San Jose is actually trying to enforce it.
It's not what it's cracked up to be.
If your kid grabs your unsecured gun and "accidentally" shoots their friend in your living room, hell yes, you should be liable.
San Jose is charging $25/year. That's no deterrent. And the NRA is the biggest gun insurance policy writer in the US. They make bank off it.
Secondly, homeowners and renters insurance already covers accidental shootings. It's in the link I posted.
Why the fuck would the NRA be allowed to insure them? That's a fault in that law. That's the fox guarding the chicken house. Ridiculous.
Not all apartment complexes and/or states require renters insurance. Some do and some don't.
How about treating it like car insurance, but the proceeds go to victims' funds?
It's not unique to the NRA. As long as the law doesn't require liability insurance to cover intentional, illegal acts, payouts are infrequent enough to keep premiums low. And I'm not sure we want the law changed to force them to cover illegal acts, because that would be devastating to the insurance industry in general.
The idea of liability insurance for gun ownership isn't a new idea, but it doesn't do what most people think it would do.
to reduce financial uncertainty and make accidental loss manageable
Any other purpose can, will and should be struck down by a court
of people denied the right to own guns.
They are among the most staunch supporters of the 2nd, job security for them. The more people armed, the more for cops to kill.
having to respond to a mass shooting in their community.
I don't think any Tulsa cops would go rushing into a fire fight. And depending on the neighborhood, they might stop for a burger on the way. Police response time to shots fired in my neighborhood is about 30 min. and then they just drive around, spotlighting a few places and if they don't find a body, head back to the station. If anyone was wounded, they'll wait for the hospital to call them.
You have to have specific criteria so cops can't use their "judgement" to deny a sale. Given all the racism and homophobia prevalent in law enforcement, do you really think they will use that discretion fairly?
but a panel, including non-law-enforcement and non-governmental members of the community.
I've seen enough "Police Activity" two summers ago to question if the police would be qualified to determine who is a 'nut job'.
Because that is what would happen, and what often happens in states like NJ.
Lol what training does anyone in LE have on this????????
Anything with a magazine capacity over single digits should be required to be housed in a police station lockdown. Checked out every time it is used and returned. (See Germany)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Focus on the beginning of the amendment, not the part after the first comma.
NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE
Same fucking rules the right wants to use for other issues, being strict constitutionalists good for one issue good for all.
Well regulated - includes knowing types and amounts of guns - mandatory registration.
Well regulated - includes monitoring of use
necessary to the security - sorry, hunting with an AR-15 is not necessary to security of a free State.
necessary to the security - checking a gun out for target practice, that could be argued as necessary to the free State.
Our current laws in no way align with the 2nd amendment, 18 year old's with zero training, no background check, do not align in any way with well regulated.
I was just trying to come up with a compromise that R's might possible agree to because right now, we're getting nowhere (completely due to Republican obstructionism and R's pandering to their gun-toting base).
We're now in favor of funding cops and letting them arbitrarily decide who gets to have their rights?
This place is losing its collective mind.
After purchase, it was a violation of law not to do it.
Of course Repukes got rid of it.
Very similar to your idea. There should be some sort of assessment of the owner at a minimum.
Although on assault weapons I favor an outright ban.
legislation before even they said, "No, way! We don't want that. That's too dangerous!"
Wait, I already have my answer: No guns at NRA conventions.
Which is a hell of a lot of them. And, that's not counting the millions of them that are already in someone's possession.
would also be an extremely uphill battle, passing laws tough enough to make someone think twice about going that route.
And, of course, the scum who commit mass shootings don't care about the consequences, and they usually either shoot themselves at the end of their rampage or get killed by police.
So we can't aim for totally curing the mass shooting epidemic, but just to reduce the frequency.