Here's an idea: If we can't get assault weapons banned, then buyers should have to pick up their

[LaMouffette]

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.

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. But that would interfere with the imaginary, made up right Scalia and Heller created

that you have to own those weapons.

[uponit7771]

2. K&R, make it easier to vote than it is to get a gun!!!

[Novara]

3. Another idea: make them buy liability insurance for ANY gun owned

And make it prohibitively expensive per weapon.

[SWBTATTReg]

4. I like your idea far better, after all, guns cause a lot of work on the part of our law effortment,

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).

[MichMan]

10. Good idea; lower income people won't be able to afford them

[NickB79]

11. Liability insurance doesn't cover intentional, criminal acts

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.

https://www.thetrace.org/2022/03/gun-liability-insurance-law-san-jose-california-tax/

Insurance companies generally don’t insure against expected or intended injuries, experts told us. “Covering an intentional, illegal act like armed assault would violate standard underwriting principles,” Ruiz said.

[Novara]

26. The purpose of insurance is to make it harder to own guns

If your kid grabs your unsecured gun and "accidentally" shoots their friend in your living room, hell yes, you should be liable.

[NickB79]

27. For one, the insurance is ridiculously cheap

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.

[Novara]

30. Oh for fuck's sake

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?

[NickB79]

31. Other insurers will also charge cheap rates

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.

[sarisataka]

28. The purpose of insurance is

to reduce financial uncertainty and make accidental loss manageable

Any other purpose can, will and should be struck down by a court

[hack89]

25. That would make the NRA a ton of money

care to guess who sells a lot of gun liability insurance?

[Karadeniz]

5. I think you're on the right track! Also, the police could make sure that the buyer isn't on a list

of people denied the right to own guns.

[Runningdawg]

6. Cops won't enforce gun laws.

They are among the most staunch supporters of the 2nd, job security for them. The more people armed, the more for cops to kill.

[llmart]

8. +1

It's like the wolf guarding the hen house.

[LaMouffette]

13. I agree. But maybe they would be in favor of a law that might help prevent them from

having to respond to a mass shooting in their community.

[Runningdawg]

14. Depends on the location and the cops.

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.

[hack89]

7. Why not pass universal Red Flag laws?

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?

[Effete Snob]

9. Yeah right

Is that officer going to be white?

[LaMouffette]

12. Good point. My plan as it is would be ripe for discrimination against POC. Maybe not one officer,

but a panel, including non-law-enforcement and non-governmental members of the community.

[obamanut2012]

18. Lol

No

[Conjuay]

15. Just an interview by someone with the training and experience to spot a nut job

I've seen enough "Police Activity" two summers ago to question if the police would be qualified to determine who is a 'nut job'.

[Samrob]

16. Great idea, EXCEPT police can not be trusted. Many are members of White supremacists groups and

gun lovers.

[obamanut2012]

17. Oh, so that only wingnuts get to have guns?

Because that is what would happen, and what often happens in states like NJ.

Lol what training does anyone in LE have on this????????

[Kaleva]

19. If one can't get assault weapons banned, how is one going to get such laws passed?

[Diablo del sol]

20. Forget that!

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.

WELL REGULATED
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.

[LaMouffette]

21. All y'all are right. Many holes in my plan. A total ban on assault weapons is needed. Period.

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).

[Joenobody]

22. What?

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.

[roamer65]

23. It used to be in Michigan that all pistols were required to be presented for a safety check.

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.

[LaMouffette]

24. Yeah, the R's would hate my idea, too. I wonder how far they would go in permissive gun

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.

[GoCubsGo]

29. And, what about the ones that are bought illlegaly?

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.

[LaMouffette]

32. There would have to be severe legal consequences for those caught with an illegal gun, but that

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.