gun control measures that makes sense?

[Kaleva]

There is no functional difference between a semi-auto rifle commonly used for hunting and a so called assault weapon. Each require a single pull of the trigger to fire one round. Banning one type of semi auto while allowing others to remain legal makes no sense and is a cause for much confusion. I remember reading articles back when the AWB was in effect of police confiscating what they thought to be an illegal assault weapon only having to return it to the owner because it was in fact legal. It just looked illegal.

I would however, have no issue with a federal ban on any magazine that carries more then 10 rounds for semi-auto handguns or 5 rounds for rifles and shotguns. I would also not include a grandfather clause and anyone who wishes to keep their magazines which can carry more then the limit must register them as they would a full auto capable weapon along with paying the transfer tax and going thru the FBI background check.

I would also not have a problem with a federal requirement that one must first pass a back ground check and successfully complete a gun safety course such as provided by the NRA before they can purchase a gun of any kind (bolt action, lever action, pump, semi-auto or revolver) or ammo. The background check and safety course would be free of charge and federally funded. After passing of the course and background check, the person would be issued a license with a photo ID just like a drivers license and it would require a refresher course and another background check every 5 years or so. In this this, I would think a grandfather clause would be appropriate and those born before a certain date would not be required to pass the course and the background check.

The federal government would not keep a record of what guns and/or ammo a person may purchase, if any altough that person's stats, picture and fingerprints would be in a federal database.

[slackmaster]

1. One simple question

Why?

[damntexdem]

5. To perhaps cut down on some of the slaughter of Americans.

And there should also be very-tough restrictions on gun sales, including application to gun shows.

[slackmaster]

9. I don't believe anything you have proposed would help

Not a bit.

[Tim01]

68. Deleted. Wrong place.

[jody]

2. While we're infringing on rights, we should take DNA samples from all males for use in rape cases.

[jeepnstein]

3. Or better yet...

keep women in the house unless they are escorted by their owner or a blood relative.

Makes as much sense as what the OP is proposing.

[thereismore]

4. No. Buying the gun is not the same as being born with a penis. nt

[jody]

6. Why then do gun-grabbers always accuse gun-owners of "penis worship". n/t

[thereismore]

77. non-sequitur. nt

[Kaleva]

18. Your rights would be protected

The Bill of Rights and the Amendments to the Constitution trump state and local laws every time. What I'm proposing is what I'd consider minimalistic requirements that would insure one who meets the said requirements would be able to purchase a weapon or ammo anywhere in the US. There are some locality's where it's very hard to get a permit to purchase a handgun or a semi-auto AK-47 even if one can prove they are Jesus Christ himself.

[jody]

19. Sorry, 2nd doesn't apply to states until SCOTUS rules for incorporation as could happen in Nordyke.

See Nordyke v. King (Hoffmang.com)

[Statistical]

38. Educate yourself

If you are going to suggest policy you need to at least understand the fact.

INCORPORATION
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

The B.O.R. is a check against the FEDERAL govt not the state govt.

The courts haven't yet ruled that the 2nd is incorporated against the states.
They may NEVER rule that or they may rule the 2nd IS NOT incorporated against the states.

Until such time as the 2nd is incorporated against the states the 2nd ammendment of the United States Constitution provides no protection or no check against state action infringing on right to keep and bear arms.

Nothing you proposed would require a state to do ANYTHING.
You have just added a bunch of hoops where people in gun friendly states would need to jump through...
while doing nothing to help people in anti states or cities.

DC was special because DC is Federal land. It made the case "cleaner" because Court didn't need to rule on if 2nd applies to the states via incorporation. The flip side is the courts didn't rule if 2nd applies to states via incorporation.

[umccoyw]

78. the 2nd amendment is incorporated

The only reason it isnt "incorporated" is because there has not been a good case for it yet even though the previous court case (not sure which one) is invalid and unconstitutional now taht D.C. V. Heller happened. D.C. V. Heller stated it is an individual right. The 14th Amendment states “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." so in fact even though D.C. V. Heller did not specifically say it was incorporated because that issue was not brought up it actually is if you use common sense. Not to mention in my opinion if an official within a state violates your INDIVIDUAL right as protected under the 2nd amendment they can be charged under the Deprivation of rights under color of law” Title 18 U.S.C. Section 242. Which states “This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.”

[Statistical]

80. which means nothing until SCOTUS says so.

I agree with you according to the letter of the law the 2nd is incorporated against the states.

That being said long time ago SCOTUS made the awful decision of "selective incorporation".
Rather than clearly states entire BOR is incorporated against the states they chose to selectively incorporate some ammendments and not incorporate others.
Sadly that precedent stands still today.

This puts 2nd in a "gray area" because of 2 major facts
1) court has shown precedent that not all amendments need be incorporated against the states.
2) until recently there was no standing to sue under incorporation because the fact that 2nd ammendment even means an individual right against federal govt wasn't proven

So 2nd is neither incorporated nor is not incorporated.

The 2nd is still in that untested "gray area" until SCOTUS clearly states it is incorporated or it is NOT.

Now I think eventually they will (assumming the court doesn't change). The bad news is that supreme court cases take a long time. Heller took almost 7 years.

The court could be radically different in 7 years and they COULD rule that the 2nd ammendment is NOT incorporated against the states.
It would IMHO be a miscarriage of justice but such things happen all the time.

[umccoyw]

85. In NYS

there was recently a case where a man had his permit revoked because sadly his wife took and and committed suicide so it was revoked for not properly securing it in the home. The man sued and in a state court they ruled that he had to be given his permit back and that permits can not be revoked for that reason per D.C. V. Heller. obviously thats interesting because the judge basically said in NY atleast that the state couldnt enforce that law because of a federal ruling which basically incorporated it. And yes officially it is not and i would also say that the SCOTUS ruling you were talking about with selective incorporation is unconstitutional itself

[Statistical]

88. Do you remember the case name? I would like to read the decision. n/t

[jody]

81. See #19 re Nordyke v. King. n/t

[Hugabear]

86. Where the fuck do you get this "infringing on rights" bullshit?

We require protesters get a permit before exercising their 1st amendment right to peacefully assemble. There are already heavy restrictions regarding fully automatic weapons?

Why do you consider basic gun restrictions to be an "infringement" on your rights?

[jeepnstein]

98. To put it politely...

You are free to assemble and engage in free speech on your own private property. I am free to keep arms in my home. You need a permit to conduct a rally or protest on public property. I need a permit to carry a concealed weapon outside my home. That all seems quite reasonable.

[Kaleva]

100. But to get to private property, one has to transport

the weapon(s) on public property.

[X_Digger]

101. And since the FOPA of '86, is protected by law (sans CCW)

There is a difference between transporting a weapon and 'carrying concealed' on one's person.

eta: decent overview of FOPA here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

[jeepnstein]

103. There are ways...

to do that without actually carrying concealed. You can even take them on airlines as checked bags. Concealed carry is a different issue from keeping arms.

[inkool]

99. Do you also support

Requiring permits for people to buy high speed printers, or requiring passing a test to get a permit to buy books. Maybe we should regulate religion so that only safe non-offensive religion can be practiced.

That is basically what you are asking for.

The fact that some regulation is tolerated or even constitutional does not mean full and compete regulation is.

[Xela]

7. What's next? Databases for those reading the wrong books?

I don't think so.

Xela

[DonP]

12. Too late - Bush already tried that

Remember the big hub bub with the original Patriot act?

Libraries refused to cooperate and track the books some people checked out.

No registration of any kind and no more "compromise" until one of the Bradys, Pelosi, Feinstein or other "common sense" gun control representatives tell me what they are willing to give up to reach a compromise.

[jmg257]

8. What would the police and military do with all those millions & millions of regular-capacity mags

they have?

Do the all the ones currently in circulation have to have serial numbers added, so they could be registered?

[NewMoonTherian]

37. The ones who has? The public?

[jmg257]

53. No they said the pubic can keep/register theirs, talking about the police & military's.

[X_Digger]

10. Would you waive the training for those in dire need?

ie, someone with a stalker / ex / etc?

I can't see a proposal like this stopping crime, just making it harder for an average person to own a firearm.

[Kaleva]

21. A temporary permit would be a good idea for those in dire need

I don't see how what I propose makes it harder for the average citizen to own a firearm. The background check requires little to no effort on the individual and successfully completing a safety course is a good idea for anyone who wishes to own a gun.

[spin]

29. If a judge can issue a restraining order...

and order the abuser to turn over firearms, a judge should be able to issue a temporary permit with a time limit to complete a training course.

[Kaleva]

32. Sound quite resonable to me

[Irreverend IX]

83. Why oppose mandatory safety courses?

Japan allows citizens to own shotguns, if they jump through a ton of hoops including a mandatory safety course. From what I recall, these safety courses are taught by the police once every three months at one location in Tokyo on a weekday afternoon. What's that? Your boss won't let you have three days off so you can go to Tokyo and take the safety course? Tough shit.

If gun owners are required to jump through federally-mandated hoops, the antis will do everything in their power to shrink those hoops as small as possible. They may start out allowing common NRA safety courses to fulfill the training requirement, but depending how things go (especially if an entity like the ATF has the power to set the training standards with no legislation required), would-be gun owners could end up putting their names on a years-long waiting list for the Official US Gun Safety Class in Washington, DC.

[Hugabear]

87. "Dire need"?

There's already a waiting period. You can't just go into a store, buy a gun, and walk out with it that same day.

But I suppose even that's an "infringement" on 2nd amendment rights.

[inkool]

89. Not in evey state.

There is no waiting period to purchase a firearm in Pennsylvania. Just an instant background check.

I have never waited more then 30 minutes to buy a firearm.

[Hugabear]

90. I find that VERY scary

Why would you ever be in a situation where you just absolutely have to have a gun right away?

[X_Digger]

91. Perhaps your abusive ex, whom you have a restraining order sworn against..

..and the police refuse to take you seriously when you say he says he's going to kill you..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

[inkool]

92. And not just PA.

Other states also do not have a waiting period. Passing the NICS is all that is required. A few off the top of my head are Texas, Virginia, Vermont, Delaware, and I am sure there are more.

I personally have never been in a position that I just had to buy a new firearm right away. However I do feel that a waiting period to purchase is a unnecessary burden on lawful firearm owners.

[gorfle]

11. A prerequisite

Any proposal for gun control must first meet the intention of our founders who wrote the second amendment into our Constitution. Until and unless we can agree on what the intention of our founders was concerning firearm ownership, we cannot discuss gun control.

I submit to you, as I have to other countless times before, that the primary purpose of firearm ownership as our founders saw it is to resist an oppressive government. This is why they set up a decentralized militia system that either eliminated or at least could counter federal military power.

I would however, have no issue with a federal ban on any magazine that carries more then 10 rounds for semi-auto handguns or 5 rounds for rifles and shotguns.

What would be the purpose of such a ban? The latest mass-murderer, Wong, is reported to have discharged nearly 98 rounds in under 1 minute using two handguns that could not have held more than 15 rounds each. Clearly reloading is no deterrent to the effectiveness of a mass-murderer.

I would also not have a problem with a federal requirement that one must first pass a back ground check and successfully complete a gun safety course such as provided by the NRA before they can purchase a gun of any kind (bolt action, lever action, pump, semi-auto or revolver) or ammo.

I have no problem with this, so long as it preserves the anonymity of firearm owners.

After passing of the course and background check, the person would be issued a license with a photo ID just like a drivers license and it would require a refresher course and another background check every 5 years or so.

This is defacto registration and destroys anonymous firearm ownership, which destroys the intent of the founders of the armed citizenry to be able to resist oppression by the federal government, as any list of firearm owners provides an easy shopping list of those people to arrest first in any overt oppressive maneuver.

I propose instead that any time ANY citizen is issued a state-issued ID or drivers license, EVERY citizen is screened through the NICS system, unless they opt out, and, if they are approved, their state-issued ID or drivers license is marked with a green F, which indicates they are illegible to own firearms. This can be shown before any firearm sale, from a dealer or from a private individual, on condition of sale. You can require all private sales to keep a record of the ID number of the sale for 10 years, under stiff penalty of law.

By pre-screening virtually everyone, the government has no idea which subset of those pre-approved people actually own firearms, and thus anonymous firearm ownership is preserved.

The federal government would not keep a record of what guns and/or ammo a person may purchase, if any altough that person's stats, picture and fingerprints would be in a federal database.

Even though the government may not keep a record of what guns and ammunition a person purchases, if you only screen people who buy firearms, the government still has a list of all firearm owners. This is unacceptable.

[Kaleva]

28. The states decide if the federal govt. is oppressive

If I, as an individual, decide the federal govt. is oppressive and decide to take up arms against it, I will end up either dead or in prison. Most everyone here will laugh about how stupid I was and I might even get a Darwin Award for my efforts.

"if you only screen people who buy firearms"

I didn't propose that. There is no requirement to purchase, borrow, or inherit a firearm in what I said.

"I propose instead that any time ANY citizen is issued a state-issued ID or drivers license, EVERY citizen is screened through the NICS system,"

An interesting idea. A person who cannot drive or for some reason doesn't want to drive but desires to own a firearm and/or buy ammo would have to get a state issued I.D card.

[gorfle]

34. Correct.

The states decide if the federal govt. is oppressive If I, as an individual, decide the federal govt. is oppressive and decide to take up arms against it, I will end up either dead or in prison. Most everyone here will laugh about how stupid I was and I might even get a Darwin Award for my efforts.

No, the people decide if the federal (or any) government is oppressive. You are correct, though, that a critical mass of people is required for a rebellion to take hold. Otherwise you just have a few crackpots. I imagine it is rather like a bell curve. At first, only the extremists are motivated. At some point, though, the movement becomes mainstream.

"if you only screen people who buy firearms"

I didn't propose that. There is no requirement to purchase, borrow, or inherit a firearm in what I said.

But it sounded like you proposed a system whereby people would voluntarily go get a license before they could own a firearm. In such a system, only people who were very likely to own a firearm would bother getting such a license, and thus the list of such license holders is effectively a list of firearm owners.

An interesting idea. A person who cannot drive or for some reason doesn't want to drive but desires to own a firearm and/or buy ammo would have to get a state issued I.D card.

This is in fact true in most, if not all, states today. Not everyone can drive or cares to drive. Such people are issued state-issued IDs.

[benEzra]

13. Restricting rifles to one third of the magazine capacity available in the *1860's*?

No thanks.

10 rounds is a ridiculously low limit---particularly for rifles---and 5 rounds is outrageous, IMO. (Why allow handguns to have higher magazine capacities when they account for 15 times as many murders and considerably more mass shootings than rifles do?) Americans have had access to 15-round rifles since the early 1860's and 30-round rifles since 1873, and we are not about to give them up.

The only place a capacity limit makes any kind of sense is hunting, and the vast majority of gun owners are not hunters.

Capacity limits are useless from a crime/injury prevention standpoint, anyway, unless the firearm is not reloadable. Someone planning an attack can carry all the magazines they want; your capacity limits only affect those of us who keep firearms for defensive purposes, shoot IPSC/USPSA/IDPA/3-gun competition, or shoot recreationally.

I think this thread has motivated me to pick up a couple more magazines...

[jody]

16. There you go again benEzra, using facts and reason against emotion laden rants. Shame on you! n/t

[Kaleva]

20. Only criminals need hi capacity magazines for self defense

When they are in a shoot out with the police or with other criminals. Examples of an individual expending dozens of rounds protecting himself and/or his loved ones is extremely rare. And it's not fair to cite farmers fighting off Indian attacks.

[benEzra]

26. No, criminals would be the only ones NOT significantly affected.

An aggressor planning an attack can carry as many magazines as they want, can tailor their attack to the number/capacity on hand, and don't have to attack alone. If I or my wife wake up to the alarm going off and confront said criminal(s), on the other hand, we will have *only* the ammunition in the firearm. I don't know about you, but I don't sleep strapped with spare magazines, so in a pinch the magazine in the gun would be all I'd have.

If you have a home invasion with three perpetrators, you have a carbine with a paramecium-sized 5-round magazine, and your hit percentage is 35%, what happens? There's a reason why police officers wear 15+ round pistols with spares and have 30-round carbines in the trunk, and it is NOT mass murder.

Examples of an individual expending dozens of rounds protecting himself and/or his loved ones is extremely rare.

But examples of an individual expending 10 or 12 rounds protecting himself and/or his loved ones are commonplace, and the standard deviation is quite high. And if you may need to shoot 8 or 10 rounds, you will want more than 8 or 10 rounds in the gun or else you will find yourself holding a useless club while waiting for the police to show up. There is no penalty whatsoever for having unexpended ammunition in the firearm, but running out halfway through a home invasion would be The Suck.

FWIW, for defensive purposes, my AK has a 20-round magazine and a Surefire light. If I were concerned, there'd be a 30-rounder in there.

[Kaleva]

35. A gun for home defense ought to be within easy reach always

Home invasion can take place at anytime of the day or night. It does little good for a homeowner to have a rifle with a hi capacity magazine in an upstairs bedroom while he's in the basement working on a water heater as the bad guys kick the front door in.

Maybe you keep a sidearm on you when you are at home and your AK is primarily a back up if you can get to it as I can't picture you carrying your rifle as you take out the garbage or are in the garage changing the oil on your car.

From what I've read so far on home invasion is that the best defense is locked doors that are very hard to kick in, bars on the windows and making a positive ID on a person or persons before allowing them to enter. As for a choice of weapon, almost all sites I visited said the a shotgun is the best choice but there is some debate as to if a rifle or handgun is the better second choice.

[Statistical]

40. You didn't anser the question.

Even among trained professionals hit % in reciprocal gunfire (both sides shooting) is 15%-35% depending on the study.

So a homeowner armed w/ 5 round mag (and unlikely a reload) facing 2 intruders with high cap mags is essentially facing a death sentence.

There is a reason why every police dept went from revolvers (6 shots) to low cap semi-autos (7-10 shots) to high cap semi-autos (15-19 shots). Police also almost always carry not one but TWO spare mags. 3x15-19 shots.

Sorry a ban on STANDARD CAPACITY magazines is neither sensible nor would it have any effect on crime.

[Kaleva]

48. Police carry their sidearm with them at all times while on duty

and a number of them do so when off duty. Do you carry your semi-auto rifle with a hi capacity magazine with you all times? If not, then you are taking a serious gamble. Again, from what I've read, the primary defense against home intrusion is not a weapon but the doors and windows of one's home. Home invaders, like any predator, will look for a soft target and pass up on a hard target. A homeowner serious about security will have installed reinforced doors that are very hard if not impossible to kick in, bars on the windows, a good quality alarm system, security cameras and they will positively identify all who wish access to the home and have a plan that is rehearsed often. It's far easier and much safer to deal with home invaders who are trying to break in then with same who have kicked in your front door in seconds and are inside.

[Statistical]

54. Still didn't answer the questions.

Lots of strawmen in there.

In my home 2 intruders break in. Under your law I am limited to 5 rounds.
FBI, military, LEO have done numerous studies which indicate that in a gunfight accuracy drops to 15%-35%.

Statisticaly I will run out of ammo before defeating 2 "bad guys". They however will have no such restrictions and likely have 30+ rounds between them (2 firearms 15 rounds each).


There is a reason why LEO moved to larger capacity magazines. To move ONLY law abiding citizens back to some arbitrary limit like 5 rounds is both "feel good - do nothing" and dangerous.

Hell even the most anti-gun Congressmen Feinstein "only" limited magazines to 10 rounds.

If you don't like 10 round, 15 round, 19 round magazines then don't buy them.

Hopefully someday you will realize the 2nd protects not just guns you like but even guns you don't like.

[jeepnstein]

61. Wow, you're a real expert, for sure.

So what do you do with that extra bit of time good doors and windows buy you? Do gather your family into a barricaded position? That bit of time had better be enough to get everyone together, pop open the safe, grab the AR15 or whatever, and dial 911. Or do you just call 911 and hope that there's someone available in under ten minutes because they're already at your last line of defense?

I don't carry my weapon off-duty. Who wants to walk around strapped and ready for combat 24-7? I keep a firearm secured in an area my family will use as a barricaded position. Unless it's a SWAT team with grenades and good tactics I figure I'm good for a half hour or so once the intruder makes it into the house.

Just like you should have a fire drill for your family, you should have a plan for a prowler.

[virginia mountainman]

45. But you want to set an arbitary limit on Mag capacity...

When my wife and kids are home, alone, wayyyyy out in the boonies where I live...

I want her to have as much ammo in the gun as possible,,,

Keep the people who misuse guns in jail....Leave the rest of us alone...

[benEzra]

60. I am licensed to carry a handgun, and often do so, where authorized by law.

Outside the house, yes, I will often have a handgun on my person.

Inside my home, however, the carbine is in a quick-access safe, and if an intrusion were detected, that is what I would grab if I had time; any long gun is generally preferable to a handgun if one has access. I can do so in a few seconds, and I shoot competitively with that carbine so I am quite proficient with it.

Regarding the question of shotgun vs. carbine, a .729 caliber (12-gauge) shotgun has a definite edge in close-range lethality, no doubt. However, the carbine offers much more precision, better capacity, and much less recoil than a shotgun, and as I don't own a shotgun and have no desire to, the carbine is my first choice.

[AlinPA]

105. Where the hell do you people live where you have to walk around with all that

firepower? Or sitting on a couch with a shotgun or some other gun waiting for someone to break in?

[yay]

106. congradulations, you're now the proud parent of a strawman. N/T

[jody]

30. You do know that criminals are prohibited from possessing any type of firearm, don't you? n/t

[quiller4]

104. Only some criminals, convicted felons are prohibited

With the exception of domestic violence assault, individuals do not lose their second amendment rights when convicted of a misdemeanor offense.

[zipplewrath]

14. What are your goals

The problem with most of your proposals is that they wouldn't particularly accomplish anything. Oh, there'd be some help around the edges where guns could be track to original owners more quickly. Maybe slightly better owners in the sense that they'd be getting some training. But the vast majority of the current owners aren't a particular problem and the ones that are also are the ones least affected by these rules.

You really have to get back to what are your goals? Guns in inner city are already in the hands of folks illegally. They are there predominately through criminal actions. Most inner city gun laws are aimed not at getting them out of folks hands, but being able to arrest folks for having them prior to them using the guns.

I've never really understood the fixation with "assault weapons". Any large capacity rifle is a problem. I can understand magazine restrictions to some extent, except that they occasionally are smaller for rifles than for pistols and really I'm far more concerned about pistols in various folks hands than a rifle.

But really, it is the huge flow out of certain states of guns whose only purpose is to end up in the hands of criminals. And really, as drugs and booze and cigarettes have always demonstrated, there are only one good way to affect that and it is to tax the hell out of it. Guess you could tax the hell out of the ammo. But your opponents objection will effectively be true. It is tantamount to banning them from possession by those folks who are the least threat to you.

We have all manner of problems with bad/dangerous drivers. We've been on a couple of decades DUI kick. Various places are in all kinds of efforts to have red light running controls. We have radar, and check points, and VIN for tracking theft. And it hasn't really stopped the criminal activity at all. At this point, after all the years, and all the various attemtps, I think the best thing we could do to reduce gun related crime, is to legalize most drugs for recreational use. Between that and legalizing prostitution and gambling, you'd pretty much undercut most organized crime in this country.

[Kaleva]

33. Seeking a middle ground

In some areas gun control efforts are popular while in others, such a thing would be considered an extreme violation of their constitutional rights. Could the gun grabbers accept giving up the registration of guns or the banning of them in exchange for the gun lovers accepting mandatory training, a background check and a limitation on magazine capacity?

[Statistical]

41. No because there is no compromise.

Under what you proposed:
gun owners are giving up a lot
antis are giving up nothing
criminals will be unaffected (hint they are called criminals because they don't obey the law)

few years later antis will use the "Kaleva Bill" as leverage to get even more concessions and more and more and more and more and more and more.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/09/opinion/the-next-step-for-gun-control.html
July 1994

Please read this op-ed another member linked to it.

It is from 1994 right after the AWB took away gun owners rights.

Were the antis happy. Willing to sit back and enjoy the "compramise"

HELL NO. Already NY Times is pushing for MORE GUN CONTROL.
Two Congressmen are talking about more proposals including MORE BANS, MORE RESTRICTIONS, MORE INFRINGEMENT.

It is always the same. Gun owners give up rights in return for what? Nothing.
Nothing but more gun control coming down the pipe.

Compromise is suppose to be meeting in the middle.
Your proposal is more like an anti wish list with nothing gained except our rights infringed.

[Kaleva]

49. Completing a mandatory safety course is giving up alot?

Completing the course and passing the background check gives you the right to buy as much ammo and as many guns as you want. Their is no record of what you purchased or own. As for hi-capacity magazines, if you think they are that important for your family's safety, then register them and pay the tax.

[Statistical]

52. Once again a lot hoops nothing for gun owners.

Why would ANY gunowner yourself included accept these conditions? For what? A pat on the head? It is just a collection of feel good laws that do nothing except hinder gun ownership. NOW IF there was something on the other side of the table (a ying to this yang) maybe it would make sense but there isn't. It is once again the anti-gun idea of compramise = gunowners give up something and antis don't. Rinse and Repeat until guns are extremely difficult to acquire or keep.

What makes you think antis would stop at that? If your law passed Brady wouldn't go away tomorrow they simply would have the ball moved 10ft down the court. They would still push for an AWB or complete ban on all semi-autos. Maybe they would require mandatory registration of all guns ("for safety"). An annual tax on ownership, etc.

Not sure where you get this "gives you the right to buy as much ammo and as many guns as you want" idea from.
The 2nd amendment has NOT BEEN INCORPORATED against the states. There is NOTHING FEDERAL LAW can do to change state gun control laws.
So after your law passes handguns will still be illegal in Chicago. VA will still have a 1 handgun a month law. CA will still ban "assault weapons".

Your belief that federal govt can wipe away states rights is simply WRONG.

[old mark]

15. If I have not committed a crime, what I own or what I choose to do

is not the government's business, nor anyone else's.

mark

[Kaleva]

22. How would you prove you have commited no crime?

Ought the gun dealer to take your word for it?

[yay]

23. Are you kidding?

The NICS background check is there. No one(well except for lunatics) is arguing that it be removed.

[Kaleva]

31. Then your complaint is against mandatory safety training?

[jody]

24. IMO you really do need to learn more about the RKBA issue so your post are more credible. n/t

[biermeister]

25. bingo, we have a winner here! nt.

[old mark]

43. I am simply stating what is pretty much the law where I live - Pennsylvania.

There is no such thing as mandatory "training", no such thing as registration for firearms, and no such thing as a license or permit to own a gun. Pennsylvania has a licensing system for those who decide to legally carry a firearm, that requires a form be filed with the local sheriff's office and then legally entitles the holder to carry ANY handgun anywhere in the State or other states that have reciprocity with PA.I have such a license now and have had one for nearly 15 years.
In PA, the State legally can not keep records of who owns what guns. There is a record of sale kept for handguns that is supposed to be destroyed after a short time, and no record at all kept on rifles and shotguns, referred to as "long guns". Long guns may legally be sold by anyone to anyone in the state privately with no record made at all.
Handgun transactions must be made through a licensed FFL dealer, who does the paperwork and a background check.

I am pretty well versed in firearms "issues" - I have been a shooter ince age 10 - nearly 52 years ago - and have owned several hundred firerarms of various types over the last 40 years. I am also a lifelong Democrat, and have no problem reconciling that with gun ownership or not wanting an intrusive government.

mark

[yay]

44. FFL's are required by federal law..

To keep sales records for (I think) 10 or 20 years..

[old mark]

51. OK, but they are NOT the state - they are private businesses.

Although the state has access to the records when they want.

mark

[yay]

17. This post wreaks of fail.

A $200 tax stamp on a fucking $10 magazine? WOW that's about the most asinine thing I've ever heard. How about we start requiring people to apply for a liscense and pay a $200 fee too use racial slurs?

[Kaleva]

36. Would criminals risk 10 years in prison for a $10.00 magazine?

[yay]

42. Who can honestly say.

Most of the "gang bangers" expect to die or go to prison. They risk years in prison to make petty amounts of cash dealing drugs. I'd say they aren't too worried.

Instead of taking it away from the law abiding why don't we start putting the pressure on the criminals? You know like maybe enforcing our mandatory minimum sentences or maybe making them even stricter? Star enforcing the laws on the books before you make new ones..

Middle ground my left ass cheek. You're no different than the brady bunch. You still didn't address how you would actually enforce the registration of the magazines.

[Kaleva]

47. enforce the registration of hi capacity magazines the same way

the registration of guns that are capable of full auto fire are enforced. An AK-47 is common place and cheap to be had in parts of the world but rather rare and quite expensive in the US. In the past, one could buy a Thompson submachine gun in a hardware store and it was a favorite of gangsters. When one could get a stiff prison sentence for mere possession, it fell out of favor.

[jmg257]

57. You want to add serial numbers to all the millions of existing magazines out there?

and start a magazine data base. For millions of mags that are currently in circulation, privately or in the military.
So people can register them if they want to.

And us tax payers get to pay for that?

Seems it might be a bit expensive. Forget health care - we need to register gun magazines! Kidding, a bit.

[Kaleva]

62. The gun owners who wish to have them would pay the cost

And I think most would destroy them rather then having them serialized and registered and also paying the tax plus going thru the FBI background check.

[Statistical]

67. So you agree the only ones giving up standard capacity magazines would be law abiding gun owners.

Thanks for proving the point.

You also are admitting that you intent isn't to register or serialize them but rather a defacto ban. Look up word defacto before you respond.

Before you ban something how about a study to see how much lowering mag capacity to 5 rounds would reduce homicide.

Two major points you just seem to not even be willing to consider

1) There are 350 million firearms. The number of standard capacity magazines is in the hundreds of millions range. They will still exist post-ban.

2) Only people who would give up these magazines will be law abiding gun owners. Rich will register a few of them, poor will have no access, and criminals will have unlimited access.

3) Violent crime (non-homicide) would essentially not be reduced at all.
Vast majority of rapes, robberies, burglaries, assaults, etc the criminal fires no shots. No shots. So going from 15 potential no shots to 5 potential no-shots isn't going to reduce crime.

Even in homicides mass shootings are <1% of all homicides.
So even IF (and this is an impossible IF due to #1 & #2) no mass shooting ever occured again the homicide rate would fall <1%. Now IF mass shootings occured but only w/ 5 round magazines then homicide rate would fall <1%.

Without any draconian gun control the HOMICIDE RATE HAS FALLEN 53% since the peak in 1980s!

[Iktomiwicasa]

97. Hahahaha

I'm a law abiding man, but I know what I'd do with such a ridiculous *law*. I'd just hold on to my high cap magazines for the day that I needed them, and I suspect most others would too. Screw registering any firearm related equipment that I acquired legally.

[X_Digger]

59. Tommy guns were also rare..

Unlike magazines >5rnd.

Even Canada's registration is only at 30-50% (depending on source) after years and billions of dollars.

[Statistical]

63. They were only registering guns there are a magnitude more magazines.

Virtually all have no serial number stamped on them.

So govt would need to setup magazine recording centers.

The Class III database which currently consists of 500K of so truly dangerous items would now be flooded with millions of magazines making any analysis or data mining 20x more computation intensive.

Compliance would likely be low. Would the govt honestly fill the prisons with millions of Americans who have an "illegal magazine"? At what cost to taxpayers and for what good?

Due to deaths in families or someone who stops using guns and puts them in the attic there likely are millions of unaccounted magazines in storage centers, attics, basements, etc. The original owner has forgoten about them or has died.

Will we be doing door to door searches looking for magazines? If they find one are we going to throw Grandma in jail because she wasn't even aware her dead husband (WWII Officer) left his service pistol in a truck in the attic?

The OP seems like one of those "if guns could just disappear types" except his version of the unicorn & rainbow world it is the "bad" magazines that disappear and homicide rate falls 90%.

[yay]

71. In 1934

There was only I think a <10% compliance for registering a machine gun. Despite all the war trophies from WWI/II all the gangsters all the private ownership... <10% compliance. Here let me show you a picture.

All of these magazines have no serial #, no date, nothing that would be able to be tracked. How would you Collect them?
]
]
]

Why would you essentially try to put an industry out of business? That's one thing you gun control advocates seem to forget. You need PEOPLE to make these things. When you outlaw them people lose jobs, and in an already bad job market and bad economy this would be VERY bad.

All you're doing is disarming the law-abiding. You're not disarming the criminals, this isn't going to help with mass slaughters. All this would do is hand congress and the presidents seat to the GOP on a solid platinum platter.

[Statistical]

55. Criminals are already prohibited from even having a firearm

Federal law is 5 years for simple possession. 10 years for use of firearm in a violent crime by a felon.

There is nothing to indicate that criminals are dissuaded from using firearms.

Lets not even get into the fact that the reason they are criminals/felons is because they have already broken the law before (and statistically will do it again).

Many criminals tend to be poor impulse control individuals.
They don't do mathematical calculations to determine which law is the most benefical to break.

If prison sentences stopped criminals there would be no need for any gun control except:
Law 1) Felons in possession of firearm face 20 year prison sentence.

DONE. Gun Crime Solved. No criminal would risk 20 years in prison for a crime so they obviously wouldn't ever try to get a gun.

[corruptmewithpower]

27. Five Steps to Genocide

The Nazis used the German legal system to implement their plans to rid Germany of the public health menace (Jews). Accordingly, the Nazi government enacted statutes, generated regulations, and enforced them all through the police and courts. Nazi Justiz describes how the lawful persecution moved Germany through the five steps(4) that led to the genocide: Identification, Ostracism, Confiscation, Concentration, and Annihilation.

Step One: Identification(5) Step Two: Ostracism(6) Step Three: Confiscation(7) Step Four: Concentration(9) Step Five: Annihilation(10)


http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/justiz.htm

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. Enforce the current laws and make criminal possession of a firearm an automatic 20 year sentence.

Also make that sentence be served consecutively and day for day.


David

[MercutioATC]

46. Magazine capacity has no effective impact on rate of fire in semiautomatic firearms.

I have a Glock 19. I can drop a mag and insert a new one in under 4 seconds...and that's slow.

What practical difference does it make whether I have one 30-round mag or three 10-round mags?

[Kaleva]

50. Then not having hi-capacity magazines makes no difference

to you and is not an issue.

[Statistical]

56. If you conceed that then there is no reason to ban them.

In a free democracy we don't ban things simple because we can.

citizens should have to prove why they need something.
Govt needs to prove why the need to ban it.

[jmg257]

58. I am not that quick, I'll stick with the mags I have, thanks.

[benEzra]

65. It makes little difference OFFENSIVELY; it makes a huge difference DEFENSIVELY...

since a defensive situation (particularly at home) would likely be unplanned, not premeditated, and you would likely be limited to whatever ammunition you had in the firearm.

[slackmaster]

79. If it makes no difference, there is no justification for banning them

:hi:

[inkool]

64. Still can not wrap my head around the magazine limits

For the pistols and rifles I own I have around 25 magazines which are over the capacity that you think is reasonable.

If I choose to keep them I would have to get fingerprinted 25 times, get 25 signatures from my sheriff, submit for approval from the ATF 25 times, and if approval was granted pay $200 25 times ($5,000 in all). All so that I can keep what I already own.

I am also not sure how the ATF would track them. None of my magazines have serial number. Some of them do not have any markings at all.

Alternatively I could destroy the 25 magazines and buy new ones which are within the limits. Which would be difficult as magazines with capacities that low do not exist for some of my firearms.

I am also not sure how this will lower crime. I do not think that a criminal who has an gun illegally will care if the magazine for that gun is also illegal. I see this as a law which will only accomplish annoying people who follow laws.

[57_TomCat]

66. I could support magazine restrictions...

ONLY if they applied to all and that includes the police and military.

Cops on duty have backup on hand just a radio call away with lots of potential help from SWAT if needed. They do not "NEED" higher capacities compared to the individual citizen with just the rounds in his pistol and no backup at hand when things turn bad.

Restrict ALL mag capacities and maybe. Of course if the cops and military start yelling how they "NEED" higher capacity, well then its legal for all. None of this were all equal but some are more equal than others crap.

I will stipulate that the need to reload a magazine fed weapon is very fast with pre-loaded magazines. A trained shooter can blast out more accurate and faster hits from three ten round magazines than a untrained shooter with one thirty round magazine. If the number of preloaded magazines are limited or unavailable then a limited capacity magazine will facilitate less potential damage in the limited time frames commonly found. On the other hand higher capacity does give the untrained shooter a small amount of tactical advantage. They must reload less often during their rampage. Thank the gods that the vast majority of criminal shooters in the past were by and large untrained and not as effective as they could have been with the level of sophisticated weaponry on hand.

[paulsby]

75. i'm a cop and that's a load of crap

fwiw, i don't support magazine restrictions for cops OR civilians.

but many cops often do not have backup immediately available, if at all.

i used to work a small town, alone at night, and the two neighboring towns went on call at midnight.

my nearest backup was AT LEAST 15 minutes away.

i've been in shootouts, etc. i am not talking theory, i am talking fact.

[57_TomCat]

94. I am a cop too and can relate very well.

I too worked small towns where the sheriff's office was 20 miles away and the only deputy on duty at night was "on call" at home or the S.O.. I also have been in the middle of some serious manure where backup was needed but is was over 30 minutes in arriving after I used a radio phone to get an off duty guy back to town and a Game Warden looking for "shiners". Cell phones were not available outside the cities back then and were pretty much very expensive car mounted units only.

At the time (1983)I was carrying either a AMT Hardballer, (A M1911 style similar to the Colt Gold Cup in Stainless Steel with 25 .45 rounds on me in three 8 round Devel magazines plus one chambered) or a Smith and Wesson Model 19 Combat Magnum in .357 magnum caliber (loaded with 6 rounds of magnum ammo and three loaded speedloaders on the belt), A .38 Chiefs Special on the ankle with a spare speed strip (11 rounds total)in the pocket. A Mossberg Model 500 12 gauge loaded with 7 rounds of #4 buck and a stock cuff with 5 slugs in it was racked in the front of the patrol car and a Winchester model 94 with 6 30-30 rounds in the magazine and 10 more rounds on a butt cuff in the trunk. I also had a .22 Bolt action and some bird shot for the 12 gauge for animal control.

All of these weapons were "low capacity" and if I was ordered to go back to that kit for duty and give up my Semi-auto, high capacity pistols, Benelli M1 shotgun and M4gery carbine I would still be a well armed cop on the street capable of handling most anything that would come my way.

My point is this. Limiting capacity to citizens is WRONG. Allowing the cops to have higher capacity because they are cops while limiting the citizenry is MORE WRONG. Cops are "citizens" with limited authority over others and held to a higher standard but still citizens. We "the cops" need to be held to the same standard as the citizenry when it comes to personal arms to avoid becoming a Police State. Whether we "the cops" work/live out in the boonies with limited backup or not we should NOT have priveleges over the citizenry. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Statistical]

96. Well said. n/t

[Tim01]

69. I have a friend who used 2 full glock mags in a gunfight. He may have died with less.

[benEzra]

70. Just an aside (a bit off topic), is your name from the Kalevala?

Just wondering if that was a reference to the Finnish epic.

[Kaleva]

72. I'm not that epic!

I got the name from a cafe in a town up the road from where I live. There's also a town in lower Michigan by that name. The connection to Finland is close. The town of Kaleva was founded by Finns and the original owners of the Kaleva Cafe were Finns.

[benEzra]

76. Cool! I was thinking there had to be a Finn connection somewhere.

I became interested in the history of Finland after purchasing this small piece of Finnish history:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=271x1128

and reading up on it, and got sucked in. Too bad the Finn language is as hard as the dickens for a foreigner to learn (at least this foreigner)...

BTW, English geek factoid of the day---the Kalevala heavily influenced Longfellow's Song of Hiawatha, which is why the rhyme scheme and meter of the latter, as well as some of the scenes, match the Finn epic so closely.

[Kaleva]

82. Some local Finn history

My great grandparents immigrated to this country from Finland over a 100 years ago. The three great grandparents I knew never bothered to learn any English in the decades they lived here in the US and my parents or some older relative had to translate when ever I talked to them. An interesting tale told to me by one of the great grandmothers (my mother translated) was that she remembered as a small girl living in her home town in Finland, she, her family and the entire village fled into the woods when some Russian troops arrived to ransack the village and burn it to the ground. My mother, a third generation American, didn't know English when she started school and I recall attending church as a small child and not understanding any word said or sung because the entire service was in Finn.

The old timer Finns didn't trust anyone else here and preferred to do things there own way. I've read where it was said that if a Finn was accused of a crime and put on trial and there was a Finn serving on the jury, the result would always be a hung jury. However, when the accused was released, the local Finns would nab him and conduct their own trial and pass sentence which sometimes was a death sentence. In one interesting case, a Finn was accused of molesting one of his daughters. The neighbors, also Finn, took him out into the woods, stripped him down, tied him to a tree leaving one hand free, piled a bunch of pine boughs around him and the tree. They told him they were going to set the pine boughs on fire and gave him two choices. He could cut himself free with a knife they gave him and try to make a run fro it in which case they would shoot him dead or to first castrate himself with the knife and then cut himself free in which case they would let him go. When the pine boughs were set on fire, the man chose to castrate himself and thus was allowed to cut himself free and escape.

[benEzra]

84. Egads!

My wife's Portuguese family (emigrated from the Azores to Cambridge, Massachusetts in the 1920's or 1930's, IIRC) was a little like that in some ways. I don't think my wife's great-grandmother ever learned English, and there was certainly that "circle the wagons" mentality within the Portuguese neighborhood in Cambridge.

My wife's mother's generation grew up speaking primarily English, but my wife can still swear in Portuguese. :D

[jeepnstein]

93. Finland....

Perhaps you should also mention what the Finns managed to do to both the Germans and then the Russians in WWII. It's an exceptional tale.

[Kaleva]

95. Finnish War Responsibilty Trials

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5474431

[jeepnstein]

102. An interesting chapter...

I have always been more interested in how they managed to keep the Soviet Union from devouring them, and the Germans before that.

[corruptmewithpower]

73. THE "GUN CONTROL" LAWS

GOVERNMENT GENOCIDE CAMPAIGNS AND THE "GUN CONTROL" LAWS
THAT HELPED MURDER 56 MILLION PEOPLE


PERPETRATOR GOVERNMENT DATE TARGET # MURDERED (ESTIMATED) PERMIT OR
REGISTRATION
REQUIRED DATE OF
"GUN CONTROL"
LAW SOURCE DOCUMENT
Ottoman Turkey 1915-1917 Armenians 1-1.5 million yes 1886
1911 Art. 166, Penal Code
Art. 166 Penal Code
Soviet Union* 1929-1953 Anti-Communists
Anti-Stalinists 20 million yes 1929 Art. 182 Penal Code
Nazi Germany**
& Occupied Europe 1933-1945 Jews, Gypsies, Anti-Nazis 13 million yes 1928
1938 Law on Firearms
& Ammunition, April 12
Weapons Law, March 18
China* 1949-1952
1957-1960
1966-1976 Anti-Communists
Rural Populations
Pro-Reform Group 20 million yes 1935
1957 Arts. 186-7, Penal Code
Art. 9, Security Law, Oct. 22
Guatemala 1960-1981 Maya Indians 100,000 yes 1871
1964 Decree 36, Nov 25
Decree 283, Oct 27
Uganda 1971-1979 Christians
Political Rivals 300,000 yes 1955
1970 Firearms Ordinance
Firearms Act
Cambodia 1975-1979 Educated Persons 1 million yes 1956 Arts. 322-8, Penal Code

* The law(s) mentioned are part of an older / or wider body of law on and regulation of private firearms ownership

** For a complete translation of these laws, including regulations specifically banning Jews from owning any weapons and a side-by-side comparison of the Nazi Weapons Law with the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968, see "Gun Control" Gateway to Tyranny, J.E. Simkin & A. Zelman, 1992; www.lethallaws.com



Gun control paves the way for genocide.

“In reaching a historic agreement on prohibition of weapons, we made a mighty contribution to delivering a safer and more secure Australian society.”
John Howard, 1996, after the Port Arthur Massacre, Tasmania, Australia

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
Janet Reno

"Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sara Brady, Chairman of Handgun Control International

Q: What does Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler and Amnesty International have in common?

A: Gun control!


More Gun / Firearm Quotes / Facts here.



http://www.itwillpass.com/guns_gun_registration.shtml

[derby378]

74. The real problem with this post is that you're seeking a "compromise"

My copy of the dictionary defines "compromise" as an agreement in which all parties involved are willing to make concessions or scale back their demands. What demands will the Violence Policy Center give up on? What concession is the Brady Campaign willing to make? I wish they'd speak up and tell us what scraps they'll allow us from the table.

Ever since the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, right up until 2004, the only thing that American gun owners have done is lose ground to the other side. We have seen full-automatic weapons banned from the civilian market. Then we have seen semi-automatic weapons banned from the civilian market. And now the trend continues among gun-control advocates – instead of learning their lesson from the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, and despite the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling in the case of DC v. Heller, gun-control advocates not only want to see the semi-automatic ban restored, but followed with similar legislation on .50-caliber rifles.

When it comes to our Constitutional rights as Americans, however, we owe it to ourselves and our children to sustain a mindset of constant vigilance. Over the past few years, too many of us have become pliant and weak when confronted with wiretapping, torture, corruption, and the suppression of free speech and the right to keep and bear arms. In other words, we compromised, hoping that the other side would do likewise. It has not.

Some proposed gun legislation I tend to take more personally than others – which results in an elevated level of my own involvement in Democratic grassroots politics and the fight to define our party’s message on our Second Amendment rights. How welcome this attempt to raise awareness on gun issues is among my fellow Democrats, however, is still a matter of controversy. Nevertheless, for better or worse, the only points I have volunteered where we could find common ground with gun-control activists are in the need for a well-regulated firearms industry and in the need for more education on gun safety and violence involving firearms. Notice, however, that I have only mentioned common ground, never compromise. The Second Amendment still mentions "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," and as long as Democrats say they support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they have to support this as well without degenerating into some linguistic version of Three-Card Monte in which the law-abiding American citizen is relegated to older designs of bolt-action hunting rifles to foster some illusion of increased public safety or even, God forgive me, "Homeland Security."

So if you'll please forgive my rambling, I respectfully decline the compromise that would "allow" me an AK or an AR, but restrict me to a five-round magazine.