You can pass all the gun regulation you want but it won't matter

[ripcord]

Conservative law enforcement will just consider their areas to be firearms sanctuaries where federal gun laws aren't enforced.

[sarisataka]

1. Well this should be interesting

[Thomas Hurt]

2. Many County Sherriffs have already stated as much in the past.

[sboatcar]

3. I wonder how many mass shootings need to happen in their jurisdictions before they change their tune

[ret5hd]

4. My guess would be "1"...depending on who the victim was.

[madville]

16. Local and state governments already ignore many federal laws

It’s makes sense that red states would choose to simply ignore these new hypothetical gun laws and establish “sanctuary” states. Blue states refuse to assist or cooperate with federal agencies enforcing immigration law. There is also precedent in federal court that local and state law enforcement has no duty to enforce federal law.

[sarisataka]

21. I don't doubt that is what would happen

I was more thinking of calls to fire police who won't do their jobs or send in Federal agents to force compliance.

Totally ignoring the parallel with states that allow marijuana use.

[LakeArenal]

6. So do nothing....?

[gratuitous]

32. That's been our "go to" for decades

Right now, that seems inadequate. I'm willing to do something, anything, even if it's wrong or unconstitutional or won't pass muster with every last person in the country. I'm tired of being held hostage by this violent minority that wants more carnage on our streets, in our schools, and everywhere else. "Oh, but what about the 'responsible' gun owners?" What about 'em? If it's true that by their fruits you shall know them, the "responsible gun owners" are hand-in-glove with the blood-gargling psychopaths.

[LakeArenal]

35. Exactly.

[TigressDem]

7. That's why I think "gun insurance" instead. It's about standards, violations and self regulation.

We keep making the analogy to car insurance.

We insure cars because they CAN become deadly weapons if misused. But we don't insure deadly weapons so they are properly used.

And yes, it's the same thing, but if gun insurance is a national requirement, people can go up the ladder to get help.

[ripcord]

8. Gun insurance like car insurance won't cover illegal acts

I'm not sure how this will help.

[TigressDem]

11. Sure it does.

Your car insurance says you will drive safely, following the rules of the road or get consequences.

Kill someone driving drunk and you will go to trial and most likely serve jail time.

Run over someone on purpose and you will go to trial and most likely serve jail time.

Gun insurance outlines the responsible uses of guns and specifically notes it is not legal to kill other human beings except in self defense or as part of a military action on behalf of the nation or some portion thereof. We already have rules about murder is wrong and against the law and has consequences.

Insurance simply means that if you want a gun in your hand you promise to obey the rules. If you don't, it can be taken from you. At least temporarily until you can prove you have found the mind you lost.

Therefore although everyone has a right to own a gun or a car, if they use them for murder there are consequences.


BUT.... we can appeal to gun owners saying, "Just like most people who drive do their best to drive in a safe and lawful manner, so too do most gun owners. The insurance can show that AND we can make it a tax write off if people have no safety incidents with their gun over the course of a year." THAT way it shows the government is supportive of all those gun owners who DON'T lose their minds and go kill someone.

[madville]

15. Who enforces this new insurance requirement?

ATF isn’t going to go around knocking on doors, they’re 1500 agents are set up to mostly regulate dealers and manufacturers, not go around knocking on tens of millions of gun owners’ doors.

[Gore1FL]

24. I suspect the violations would be discovered after incidents.

No insurance would at least make it easier to them remove the person's other guns.

[TigressDem]

43. Exactly.

AND if people with guns want to go under the radar by behaving themselves, it's kind of the same result.

[moonshinegnomie]

28. proof of insurance before buying a gun or ammo

if you fail to get the proof and sell a gun and that gun is used in a crime you go to jail .

[TigressDem]

36. How do we do it for cars? People come into the DMV and if they are caught driving without...

Their car gets impounded and it's a shit show to get everything back to where it was before they thought they could get away with it.

So where they sell guns there can be a license to go with it, the NRA can train people. They have lots of money and time. Walmart sells guns and fishing licenses. It can't be that hard.

All the insurers out there can add gun insurance and people do this voluntarily. If they don't and they behave and stay under the radar, we win anyway.

We could add a G to DMV and DMVG will set up a test. Maybe NRA has sites for hands on testing.

The main thing is, come on, responsible gun owners you know you aren't the real problem (except re-posting all the talking points), work with us to make kids safe. Yeah, ok barricade the schools, but lets dig under to the real problem and get it handled.

IF we can turn the tide on this, we can find other bi=partisan solutions. No one is going to 100% get there way, but everyone should get something good out of it. If only not to have to see children slaughtered for no reason at all.

[NickB79]

47. So what stops an insurance company from selling a barebones liability policy

Say, $50/yr? Covers nothing, but you can say you have insurance.

If it's like auto insurance, then there are going to be a lot of companies willing to do this.

[TigressDem]

66. It still puts the gun owner in a position of being responsible for their behavior

Just like with a car, you goof it up and you have to pay a high deductible to get your car fixed and maybe if there is legal negligence involved you will have to get your wages garnished to pay off someone else's car that you damaged.

And with the gun insurance there will need to be education, maybe ongoing so if someone decides to upgrade to a larger weapon, they are informed what limitations are on their behavior if they use it. Maybe a special permit for automatic weapons.

I still think 100 round mega clips should be military only and not sold to the public.

That kid in Texas was able to keep 19 cops at bay because he had so much ammo.

[TigressDem]

40. Any law enforcement, gun dealer or gun club that deals with gun owners.

Right now any crime is given a heightened sentence if firearms are involved.

Cops don't run around looking to see if people have car insurance but if they stop you for something else you have to show proof.

Car dealerships can't sell you a car without insurance.

Guns that are out there have a grace period to become compliant and then the person is out of compliance and insurance costs start mounting.

[NickB79]

37. Will the insurance agency be liable if a client commits a crime?

Say someone with gun insurance shoots up a school.

Can the insurance agency be sued and potentially have to pay for the millions in medical costs, lawsuits, etc that will come from the shooter's carnage?

If no, the insurance agency literally has no reason to care, and will charge cheap policies that have no impact on legal gun ownership. Prior felonies and domestic violence misdemeanors already bar a person from legally owning guns, so what other criteria would the insurance company go off of?

And under our current laws, insurance companies aren't typically responsible for intentional, criminal acts.

So how does your proposal work? I'm left wondering where the teeth are in it.

[sarisataka]

41. No they would not be liable

Intentional acts are, with extremely few exceptions, excluded.

That is why such insurance already exists and is not expensive.

[TigressDem]

67. It changes the way we work with gun owners.

Because it's such a divisive issue, this is simply a means to get agreement that defines responsible gun ownership and behavior.

Most of the gun owners that are responsible do this stuff on their own.

But what insurance does is it says, "When you bought your gun and insurance, you agreed to use it in a legal and safe manner."

Then when they break the law, they lose their gun until they are "rehabilitated" so people who break the law are the reason they can't have their own gun.

It already works like that for felons who used guns in their crimes not being allowed to have guns for at least the duration of their parole or whatever sentence they serve.

The TEETH is in supply police with an ability to screen a situation and give a warning or like with DUI stops it allows them to show reason someone is either a danger to themselves or others and the gun gets removed.

Good ol' boys are fixin to have an OK corral in the middle of Main Street because they are drunk off their asses. Guns are confiscated, fines are levied and some sort of safety class must be passed to get them back. Again, they can go whine to the NRA to make it better, but the NRA will be happy to comply as it is an income generator for them.

[taxi]

13. I'm lost here - what type of claim could one possibly file for?

It's understandable that a claim would be rejected for unlawful or illegal actions. What would this insurance cover?

[madville]

17. The idea behind insurance is that

These insurance companies are going to conduct regular background checks on their policy holders to make sure they are still eligible to hold a policy, like they regularly make sure someone’s DL or car registration is still valid. I think participation would be very low, maybe 25%, majority of existing owners would just ignore it.

[taxi]

22. For those reasons it would be a hard sell.

Rural democrats won't want any part of it. Splitting the party over problems that the r's created isn't a good idea. We need to tough up and force their hand.

[madville]

23. Plus requiring insurance premiums is like a poll tax

People having to pay to exercise a right

[TigressDem]

46. You probably didn't read the part about being able to write off the premiums at years end.

As long as there were no safety incidents, the insurance reports the good news to the state and fed and they split the bill 50-50.

It may not be an actual cashback, but it could decrease their taxable income like an upgrade to your home or medical bill.

I have a right to work which basically means my boss can fire me whenever he wants.

Those children had a right to go to school and live through the day.

I don't give a flying monkey f*** bout snowflakes complaining about having to grow up and show responsibility before getting their rights to gun ownership.

[madville]

53. If someone doesn't itemize deductions

And they take the minimum standard deduction then they wouldn’t be able to write off the premiums. This would disproportionately affect lower income people, requiring that they pay the full cost with no tax benefit.

[TigressDem]

68. Happens in life for many things.

It's a carrot not a stick and could be a line item where you get the deduction from your taxable income regardless.

It might not be a cash back instant option, but it improves your situation.

Honestly, people in higher income brackets would most likely not get it back because it will be a drop in the bucket.

We all pay car insurance and no one gives us a tax write off for that.

[Zeitghost]

56. What makes you think that?

I've never had an insurance company regularly check my license or registration status. Both have lapsed here or there over the years and the insurance company never blinked an eye and gladly took my premium payments. I'm sure most policies have clauses limiting or excluding coverage for unlicensed drivers, but that doesn't mean they're checking up on customers, they simply deny the claim after the incident.

Firearm insurance would work the same way, and since no policy is going to cover intentionally illegal acts, it's going to be pretty cheap. Preventable accidents account for ~1% (

[madville]

59. Because auto insurance companies regularly

Check the status of your drivers license, driving record, registration, inspections (if your state does that), etc. It’s typically done prior to renewal, but also when a policy change is made, coverage changed, vehicle added/removed, when a claim is made, etc. It’s extremely easy now that everything is electronic.

[Zeitghost]

60. When they do that

And most do not do many of those things, they do so to limit their risk. They look at your driving record, but that's about it. I have a fully insured car that won't pass smog at the moment and so it has no valid registration, still insured.

Car accidents are very common and cause significant property damage, even when nobody is hurt. Property damage from an accidental discharge would be negligible so you're really only dealing with serious injury or death, which compared to car accidents are extremely rare. An insurance policy covering accidental damage caused by a firearm could be written for a few bucks a year and they would have no need to verify your legal ability to possess a firearm because if you're you're prohibited and something happens, they just deny the claim after taking your premium. And it's not like the felon or domestic abuser who's prohibited from possession of a gun is going to care much about insurance mandates if they decided to commit another felony and carry a gun.

Let's be honest, most of these calls for gun insurance are just just people looking for a way to make owning a gun more cost prohibitive. That's misguided for two reasons. One, as I pointed out, the policies would be very inexpensive, likely a few bucks a month. Secondly, if it did raise the cost of gun ownership significantly, that's an undue burden on the poor. No matter where you fall on the gun rights/gun control spectrum, you should at least acknowledge that the poor have every right to gun ownership that the wealthy have.


I point this out not because I think the idea is horrible, just that it won't accomplish much and would require significant legal and political victories to work. It's just not a good use of our limited resources and political capital.

[TigressDem]

70. It's about gun safety education and accountability.

Like when people first start driving they need to understand what is involved and local laws they need to follow.

Maybe the NRA could use their safety classes as a way to help prove someone deserves a lower rate. I'm not looking to have anyone get rich off this, it's more about making sure that when someone picks up a gun they commit to using it in a safe manner.

If they break their word, it's on them.

AND at having ways back from losing a gun like we do with cars.

[TigressDem]

69. At renewal, you typically have to fill out forms and supply verification.

You get stopped for running a red light and you have to show proof.

They screen people for DUI on holiday weekends.

But even in your scenario, the person has just screwed up their own life by not complying and they lost their gun.

[TigressDem]

38. So some idiot is shooting up in the air on 4th of July. Bullet comes down kills your dog.

You get the cops, file a report and this person who had a book given to them and passed a test going over stupid things like this has to pay a fine, maybe do jail time as it could have been a human instead of a dog.

There are laws on the books about what constitutes misuse of a weapon. It isn't as clear or extensive as it could be, but local ordinances probably have more information. Anyway, we'd just get people educated about what they need to do and if they don't, then they aren't responsible enough to have a gun.

With FREEDOM comes RESPONSIBILITY. You don't just get a gun for being American. You have to show you can use it responsibly.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/19990728/federal-penalties-for-firearms-misuse

[NickB79]

49. Does gun liability pay the dog's owner for it's death?

Because the repercussions you described already happens without gun insurance. What role does the insurance policy play in this scenario?

[TigressDem]

64. Insurance facilitates it without major court involvement.

Second, if someone has multiple incidents they can loose their right to their gun until they can show an ability to behave in a responsible manner.

Complete gun safety class with the NRA, go to anger management, whatever reason they have for misusing their gun needs to be addressed.

The role of insurance is to put the idea out there that all gun owners should be responsible for their own behavior. Accidents happen, just like with cars, but if someone is intentionally shooting places up just because they can, it's like some idiot doing doughnuts in your lawn. They are obviously out of line with their behavior and we as a society began to agree and define what responsible gun ownership means.

There are a lot of good people who own guns and have no need to do anything stupid with them. We want more of that.

[taxi]

62. There are two areas - areas where discharging a firearm is illegal and areas where it is not

In an area where it is unlawful to discharge a firearm, typically an urban area, no one would buy insurance because they could never collect because a firearm was discharged illegally.

In an area without these restrictions there could be the unintended consequence of creating an incentive for an accidental shooting. Persons A and B could soon figure out that nonlethal accidents pay big. It would not take very long for the system to be abused, resulting in more, not fewer shooting accidents.

[TigressDem]

65. Well, it would be illegal to discharge firearms for nepharious purposes per national law.

It's already illegal to shoot your neighbor even if you live in a rural zone.

Insurance auditors are trained to smell bullshit. And if insurance was such a racket, we'd have more car accidents because people want to collect the money. It happens, but as a percentage it isn't what increases car accident rates the most.

Besides if they are shooting each other instead of school kids, it's still a win of sorts.

[taxi]

73. Making a national law is maybe the biggest hurdle.

It brings the discussion to one of states' rights. No matter what would or could be done trying to establish an insurance regulation under national law it would have to pass in the Senate and not enough states will vote to pass it. Thinking outside the box and aiming for a national solution would require that communities be allowed to pass laws such as an insurance requirement, obviously areas already banning weapons will continue to ban them and areas not restricting won't start and wouldn't care about the insurance either. It has to be handled on local and state levels to get anywhere, and even if there was a sudden shift in public opinion people would still be allowed to transport weapons through restricted areas. I don't want to sound like the nay-sayer here but this problem has to be handed back to the republican party and there is a way to do it. That's what we could be focusing on.

[Kaleva]

27. We don't know who has or where millions of guns are.

How are you going to make them get insurance?

[TigressDem]

39. You don't necessarily "make them" but if they use their gun without insurance, it can be confiscated

So dude goes to the shooting range and has been living under a rock for a year or two and tries to go in without insurance. The shooting range has to report it and the guy gets educated. The NRA can provide safe lockers or the police can store them until the person gets their situation straightened out.

Just like someone caught driving drunk gets their car impounded, with fees adding up daily and faces possible criminal charges depending on how this got found out, someone who tries to use their gun without insurance is outside the law.

IF they are extra careful and sneak around, they can get away with not doing it. So what?

Either way they are self regulating themselves. If they want to rebel at the same time, it's a free country.

[Kaleva]

44. I'm wondering if local LEO in all the red areas would confiscate any guns for lack of insurance?

As for shooting ranges, Feds don't regulate them except the EPA has some rules about lead.

"The EPA regulates outdoor shooting ranges through the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act. This act controls and regulates individuals and businesses that deal with hazardous waste. The lead used in bullets and shotgun shot falls under the category of hazardous waste as defined by the EPA. Understanding the regulations governing how the waste hazards commonly produced by gun ranges is critical for running a legal and environmentally conscientious range."

https://legalbeagle.com/6880418-outdoor-shooting-range-epa-regulations.html

[TigressDem]

45. Well, they would now. Waterpark has to have insurance in case someone drowns, but not a gun range?

Again. If they all rebel and just do their own thing but keep it under the radar by not doing anything to get caught. So what?

People drive cars without insurance when they can't afford it all the time, but they drive very carefully so they don't get stopped.

It's about changing the mentality of a gun is an UNDISPUTED RIGHT, to it is an item a RESPONSIBLE American owns and uses within the rule of law.

ANYONE can own a car if they take the steps to show they can handle it safely.

ANYONE can own a gun if they take the steps to show they can handle it safely.

Make sense?

[Kaleva]

57. Unlike many here, I did not give Alec Baldwin a pass

In numerous threads I said that anyone who handles a gun ought to have training on the basic safety rules. No exceptions.

"When it comes to guns, there are no accidents or mistakes. Just negligence.
Guns are dangerous.

Nobody should be handling a gun unless they have received extensive training, particularly about safety procedures, or are under the direct supervision of someone who is.

This won't eliminate all tragedies but it would greatly reduce them."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215977231

"It's possible Baldwin had no idea that guns are dangerous

and that's why he didn't follow basic gun safety rules."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142835888#post18

"It's your right to have a don't give a fuck attitude about gun safety.

I and many others feel otherwise and believe that anyone who handles a gun, regardless of the situation, ought to treat it as potentially dangerous (hundreds killed every year prove that to be true) and follow simple to understand and life saving safety rules.

For the sake of those around you, I do hope you don't ever hold a gun, even for a brief moment. If you do, I beseech you to take some training first."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142835888#post71

"Did the script call for Baldwin to point the gun at the Halyna Hutchins?

Your comment:

"He is reasonably expecting the gun not to be loaded with live ammunition."

One of the most fundamental and simple to understand safety rules is to treat every gun like it's loaded. Even if one verifies that it isn't. There is no such thing as reasonably expecting the gun not to be loaded with live ammunition."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142835888#post71

"Hopefully the book is thrown at the owner of the gun

But I doubt that will happen"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216587513#post2

"I'm not surprised because so many idiots own guns

Last edited Sun Apr 24, 2022, 04:29 PM - Edit history (1)

My guess is the gun owner never had a plan nor practiced that plan as what to do in case of of an attempted or actual break in. I also guess that he didn't spend a dime on reinforcing his outside doors which would make it much harder for an intruder to break in. Now he's in deep shit"

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100216623732#post24

[Straw Man]

71. Gun ranges are businesses and are regulated by state laws.

They are open to the general public, and they do have to carry insurance. Insuring private gun owners is a whole different proposition.

ANYONE can own a car if they take the steps to show they can handle it safely.

Not true at all. You can be an alcoholic drug abuser with a lifetime revocation of your driver's license, and you can still own a car. You don't have to register it, and you don't have to insure it. You just can't drive it on public roads.

[TigressDem]

75. But their company cars are set up with insurance according to Federal requirements

Yes insuring private gun owners is different than insuring a business. But what is the same is that we have laws that apply to many situations and insurance to help people through those situations.


RE:

ANYONE can own a car if they take the steps to show they can handle it safely.

Not true at all. You can be an alcoholic drug abuser with a lifetime revocation of your driver's license, and you can still own a car. You don't have to register it, and you don't have to insure it. You just can't drive it on public roads.


OK but those people are breaking the law and if caught out on a public road, get their ass handed to them and their cars taken away.

Also, if gun owners want to rebel and lay low, it still doesn't allow them to walk into town with guns and start shooting the place up.

You can break the law and get away with it, doesn't mean you are showing yourself to be a responsible gun owner.



BUT we begin to SHIFT the friction from those of us who want gun regulation to include all those responsible gun owners who CAN do the right thing and give them the high ground and we are there to support them because their example is the one we'd like to see others following.


We never get anything perfect. But if we don't have some criteria we just get a hodgepodge and that is what gun safety is in this country at this time.

It's my RIGHT to have a gun and I will do whatever I want with it is basically where we are at now. Any common sense regulation that defines safe usage and gets someone to go through gun safety education in order to own a gun is a step in the right direction.


They ARE deadly weapons after all.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

74. ...

ANYONE can own a car if they take the steps to show they can handle it safely.

What!!!
Where did you come up with this notion?

This isn't true at all.

[Irish_Dem]

9. Yes, it is not just about guns. It is about the will of the American people.

Do they want their children slaughtered or not?
Do they want their children to be safe in school?

Right now, the American people willingly allow the murder of their children.

[The Magistrate]

10. Hire More Feds, Sir

Interference by local 'law enforcement' can be dealt with expeditiously. It will not be a factor very long.


"Violence solves very little, but what it can solve, nothing else can."

[crickets]

12. Thank you, Magistrate. Defeatism gets us nowhere. nt

[madville]

19. They would definitely have to

The red states would simply refuse to assist with any federal enforcement and as we’ve seen with immigration law in blue states, they don’t have to.

The ATF only has 1500 agents, they are smaller than the Atlanta Police Department for example.

[Kaleva]

26. Are local sheriff's required to enforce federal laws? They can just ignore them.

[The Magistrate]

30. Certainly They Can, Sir

Whole states do it, in regard to marijuana. Hence the prescription for more Federal agents to enforce such laws where local authorities will not.

What would come to be the sticking point is that a portion of county sheriffs in rural patches believe they have the authority to obstruct Federal officers in 'their' county. Sooner or later, one will make the attempt, and if the insurrection is not quashed quickly and ruthlessly, there will be imitators.

[NickB79]

33. It will become like Prohibition then

With the local cops tipping off people that the Feds are coming, and arrests few and far between. Without the local police on board, enforcement becomes untenable.

How many tens of thousands of federal agents do you suppose we'd need to hire? And how would we respond when the GOP shuts down the government before they'd approve such funding?

[The Magistrate]

42. Should That Occur, Sir, Arrest Corrupt Police

What made prohibition futile was the general refusal of the populace to cooperate, the ardent desire for intoxicating spirits easily outweighing habits of abiding the law. In certain districts this may prove the case for guns, but not in the country at large.

[NickB79]

48. "Not in the country at large"

Oh boy. That's a good one. You aren't very familiar with huge swaths of the US, I take it?

[The Magistrate]

50. Let Us Be Clear, Sir

Is it your honest belief that resistance to Federal laws controlling availability of firearms would motivate a great portion of the country's population to criminal behavior?

The handful scattered across a good swathe of acreage are far from sufficient to set at naught the power of national law enforcement.

[NickB79]

51. You greatly overestimate the power of federal law enforcement

Without the backing of both the local and state agencies, their power is reduced.

With the power the GOP currently holds in Washington AND in SCOTUS, their power is reduced further.

At least during Prohibition, the federal government was fairly united in enforcing the laws of the nation. Are you forgetting the Senators and Representatives of the 28 states with Republican governors and majorities? If anything, it is worse now than it was then.

[The Magistrate]

54. Your Objections, Sir, Are All Addressable By Augmenting Forces

Are you suggesting open defiance by local authorities on the lines of the segregationist resistance in the Civil Rights period? In the name of unrestricted possession of firearms?

The statement was made that no regulation could succeed because locals would not enforce Federal law. The Federal government has the power to enforce Federal law, regardless of local cooperation, and can certainly recruit forces sufficient to do so, should that be national policy.

[Ex Lurker]

76. Do you want a civil war?

that's how you get a civil war.

[The Magistrate]

78. Enforcing Law Is Not What Makes For Civil War, Sir

Combinations in arms sufficient to set at naught lawful authority is some area is what commences civil war.

[NickB79]

52. We didn't arrest the mayor of Oakland for tipping off immigrants to ICE raids

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/28/us/oakland-mayor-libby-schaaf-ice-arrests/index.html

Why not? It is the same thing Republican states will do.

Will we be arresting Republican mayors, Senators and Representatives if they do the same with federal gun control agencies?

[The Magistrate]

55. Was A Statute Violated, Sir?

If none was, no arrest would be legitimate. If one was violated, the decision was made not to arrest, which is not a confession of incapacity.

Arrest would be appropriate in cases of open defiance of Federal enforcement actions, or cooperation with criminal elements.

[maxsolomon]

14. "We" can't pass ANY gun regulation we want.

Your OP is moot.

[Handler]

18. I disagree

Banning assault weapons will help. I’m not saying it’s the only thing that should be done but, it is the most logical and will have the quickest effect.

[madville]

20. Just starting there, the big hurdle is

an agreeable definition of an “assault weapon”. Does it only apply to specific calibers, the way a gun looks, all semiautomatics in rifle calibers, rifles with detachable magazines, etc?

Also to withstand legal challenges any law would likely have to have a grandfather clause for existing owners and the ability to pass them down to their heirs, the current federal courts aren’t going to uphold confiscation/mandatory buybacks.

[ripcord]

58. And many red areas will ignore an assault weapons ban

They aren't required to enforce federal laws, we have already defended that in court for them.

[Handler]

61. Assault weapons are easy to identify

Any thing on the AR or AK platforms is a good place to start. Detachable magazines should be banned. This should allow for hunting rifles with incorporated magazines.
Red states not recognizing the ban is a false flag argument. This ban would be at the federal level,
just like the full auto ban. This is already successful in England and Australia.

[Kingofalldems]

25. Should we give up?

[Liberal In Texas]

29. Similar argument that there are already so many guns out there you'd never get

enough of them off the streets to make a difference.

My reply is that you have to start somewhere. It worked in Australia.

And the Sheriff Bubbas of the world will start toeing the line if enough of them are fired or get arrested if they break laws.

[rockfordfile]

31. A lot of those counties have republican Sheriffs. I'd say those sheriffs are a pos. .

[AntivaxHunters]

34. Cool. And the feds can take over police departments.

[WarGamer]

63. Not to mention the High Courts.

The Courts have recently gutted California's laws on age 21 purchases, high capacity magazines and assault weapons.

The Courts are ALL IN on guns.

[Captain Zero]

72. We've done nothing for so long.

We can do nothing now.
Sounds like a bad place to be.

[Pyryck]

77. ATF is legally capped in the amount of agents in the agency

Due to, wait for it...Republican congressMEN passing statues limiting the number of agents.