Gun laws- if you were in charge, what would you keep?


PDA






goon
September 15, 2004, 11:02 PM
I have a disagreement with a guy on another board, and that has got me thinking about what gun laws I would keep if I were in charge...
If I were in charge, I would eliminate all the gun laws in this country. There would be restrictions on nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, but things like tanks, attack helicoptors, artillery, mortars, machine guns, explosives, and rocket launchers would be completely legal under federal law. Background checks would still be done, but not as they are today.
See, all the violent criminals would either be dead or locked up forever. Nonviolent ex felons who served their time and who had led law abiding lives would be granted all of their rights back after a specified time. Nonviolent repeat offenders would be exiled, probably into the Atlantic Ocean on a tire inner tube and banished from ever returning to US soil. If they make it to England, they live.
I would also add in mandatory militia service for every citizen (except active military and some LEO) within a certain age bracket. People with disabilities would still be required to attend if their disability wasn't too severe. For example, my brother wears hearing aids in both ears, but he can still use a rifle. He would be required to attend (although he would be there anyhow).
What would you do?

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun laws- if you were in charge, what would you keep?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jpIII
September 15, 2004, 11:12 PM
Restrictions I wouldn't mind:

I thought about it for a while, and the only restriction I could come up with that I dont mind are perhaps local ordinances pertaining to shooting within city limits for purposes of keeping down on the unneccessary "noise pollution". Obviously, self defense cases etc would be exempt.
I just don't want ear defening noises coming from my neighbors.

With that said, I would be perfectly ok with it, if my neighbors used a proper backstop and a silencer.:D

heck for that matter, it sound like fun!:D

armoredman
September 15, 2004, 11:32 PM
I'd keep one - Vermonts' law that states it's illegal to carry a firearm with intent to violate the law....

GigaBuist
September 16, 2004, 12:21 AM
- No brandishing, and by brandishing I mean pistol in hand, waving it about, and yelling like a lunatic.
- No pointing it at people that don't need killerin'.
- No killerin' people that don't need killerin'.

- Noise issues are prefectly legit. If you're too close to other folk's homes then use a supressor... which can be purchaesd at your local hardware store.

That's about it for me.

Standing Wolf
September 16, 2004, 12:30 AM
I'd keep the Second Amendment. All possible crimes involving firearms are already covered under other laws.

MICHAEL T
September 16, 2004, 12:45 AM
Always wanted law that says each year on your Birthday you get one free killing. I figure if everbody had this right would make for a very polite world.:what:

goon
September 16, 2004, 02:09 AM
Someone on the AK forum had a similar concept.
Everyone gets one and only one, ahem how shall I put it? Butthole permit.
One permit in your lifetime. You can save it as long as you want and even not use it, but no one would know whether you had used yours or not.
I think that people would be alot more civilized if that were the case.
The guys on the AK forum are a little more crude than we are over here, but all in all, I like them.
I fit in well over there. Sometimes here, I have to ... Ummm ... wait until I have cooled down to post a reply.
That is usually good though.

Also, I wasn't really thinking of the 2nd ammendment as a gun law, but I guess it is. I'd keep it.
I also guess that allowing localities and states to sort of taylor their own laws makes sense. People in California know nothing about what people in Georgia need.

2nd Amendment
September 16, 2004, 02:59 AM
I'd eliminate everything that pertained directly to firearms. I'd create laws which dealt in downright Draconian ways with those who misuse them, and very clearly define "misuse". Crimes with firearms would virtually vanish, both because of the fact nobody would want to face the penalties and because those who did would only have the opportunity to do so once... "Repeat Offender" would become a forgotten term.

Tamara
September 16, 2004, 06:49 AM
Gun laws- if you were in charge, what would you keep?

I wouldn't keep any gun laws, just murder laws, assault laws, rape laws, and robbery laws.

4570Rick
September 16, 2004, 06:53 AM
I keep them all except for about 20,000 of them. :scrutiny:

foghornl
September 16, 2004, 09:03 AM
No Nuke-Bio-Chem for Jon & Jan Q. Public-Citizen...other than that, what ever you can afford to feed/shelter/clothe.

National Reciprocity for CCW. No qualifiers such as active/retired LEO only. period.

When the Grand Jury/Prosecuting Atty et al says good shoot on a self-defense case, end of story. No 'wrongful death/liability' suits from family members of said miscreant. Any ambulance chaser bringing such a suit is instantly suspended from the bar for a period of not less than 5 years.

No suing firearms manufacturers because some miscreant(s) stole weapon(s) and used said weapon to murder Casper Milquetoast, innocent private citizen. See above for remedy to this one.

Mad Man
September 16, 2004, 09:44 AM
I don't know about "keeping" any gun control laws, but I'd require the government -- and government employees -- to be bound by them too (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel073002.asp). None of this "LE are exempted" crap that we've been seeing.

If the police have access to nuclear weapons, artillery, anti-aircraft rockets, and tanks, then the citizens in that jurisdiction should too. If the police don't, then the citizens don't need them either.

If the police are allowed to keep machine guns and .50 BMG rifles to fight crime, then the citizens in that jurisdiction should, too. If the police are prohibited from keeping machine guns, then so could the citizens in that jurisdiction.

If all the police are allowed to have is a .38 revolver, then so should the citizens. (Not that I'd be happy with that type of situation, but I would accept it under the rules. What I hate now is being told that nobody needs a machine gun except crime lords and mass murderers, which is why the police are allowed to have them).


The benefits of such a policy are:

1) it answers the question about "does the Second Amendment cover nuclear weapons and rocket launchers? If not, where do we draw the line?"

2) the government wouldn't pass any gun control measure that they don't want to live with. Yeah, there could still be gun control laws, but they would tend to be more sensible.

3) the citizenry would be as well armed as the government agencies which are supposed to "serve and protect" us, which I think goes along with the intent of the Second Amendment.


Obviously, the wild card is the military, which has different needs, purpose, and rules of engagement than any domestic government agency. But in theory, the military is not supposed to be enforcing the law in the United States anyway.

Unlike the military operating in foreign lands, the police and citizenry they "serve and protect" are in the same community, and need to protect themselves against the same bad guys. Therefore, they should have the same tools. The only thing the "LE exemption" from gun control laws has resulted in is resentment, disrespect, and distrust among a group of people that have traditionally been the strongest supporters of the police.

mfree
September 16, 2004, 09:54 AM
No restrictions on types of firearms, period.

NBC, yeah, those get restrictions.

Here's a kicker of an idea though.... open carry, legal everywhere, anywhere, anytime. CCW requires a license that involves training. What does this accomplish? The people who carry guns, a criminal looks at them, sees the gun, and don't know their skill level. The people who don't carry guns openly, a criminal looks at them, sees no gun, and realizes this could either be sheep for dinner, or someone with a CCW who will eat their lunch handily and permanently.

Draconian punishments for violations with weapons are also another way to go, instead of banning the arms themselves. If someone uses a gun in conjunction with another felony, the penalty for that felony is instantly quintupled. If it's a violent felony, death by firing squad (maybe using, oh, smoothbore .72" musket with real black powder just to be symbolic).

mhdishere
September 16, 2004, 09:56 AM
Sorry folks, but I think I'd draw the line at explosives too. Mostly because of the level of training and ability required to use the safely, I don't want my drunken neighbor playing with a charge that could take out my home too.

Quad .50's sure look like fun, but how to get you enough money for all that ammo???? You HAVE to be a government to afford to shoot those things!

Mad Man
September 16, 2004, 10:02 AM
If someone uses a gun in conjunction with another felony, the penalty for that felony is instantly quintupled.

Is a murder somehow more tragic when committed with a gun?


"I'm sorry about your loss, Mrs. Byrd (http://www.texasnaacp.org/jasper.htm). But at least you can take consolation in knowing that your father was dragged to death behind a truck, rather than shot with an evil firearm."

Third_Rail
September 16, 2004, 10:16 AM
Sorry folks, but I think I'd draw the line at explosives too.

I wouldn't. Most of the "common" military explosives are easily made, and quite safe to handle. I'd draw the line at having a cumulative mass over 25kg of explosives in a single storage unit, which must be 500 feet from any dwelling.

A $10 permit and 2 hour safety class should be mandatory, as should US citizenship and a basic background check (i.e. is this person a habitual thief?)

Explosives were, are, and will be a fantastic tool that most people would love to be able to use because of their usefulness. Just because someone can use them for evil doesn't mean that they should be restricted.

Oh, and if someone has another storage unit, 500 feet from all structures, including other units, then they may keep another 25kg, etc.

It worked for years and years and you didn't hear of criminals blowing things up wantonly. Why? Explosives are expensive to buy, last I checked. Even their basic chemical precursors are rather expensive in a lot of cases.

Before replying "Yes, but....", think of this: almost every argument you can make about explosives can apply to firearms as well. Both are tools, and useful ones at that.

Matt G
September 16, 2004, 10:28 AM
Is a murder somehow more tragic when committed with a gun?


"I'm sorry about your loss, Mrs. Byrd. But at least you can take consolation in knowing that your father was dragged to death behind a truck, rather than shot with an evil firearm."


Agreed. I have the same problem with enhancing the penalty because the murder was a hate crime. Now, I'm all against hate crimes of every variety, but I just can't see explaining to a family that the murder of their beloved son or daughter, who worked as a clerk in a Kwik-E-Mart during an armed robbery, didn't count as much as another murder, because the motive in the other murder included hate of race, creed, etc.


I would maintain a ban on possession of firearms by convicted violent felons.

I would maintain a ban on firearms in jails and prisons.

I would maintain ban (at the municipal level) on shooting in municipalities, outside of safe practice areas or emergencies. (Note: simple "discharge within the city limits" would be a ticket, unless substantial danger to others shown.)

I would maintain the law that forbids obscuring a firearm's identification numbers. (Hey, if my gun's stolen, I want it back!)

I would create a new law: Starting at kindergarten and continuing every year through graduation, every schoolchild would have to go through a day's worth of intensive firearms safety training each semester. He or she would have to demonstrate a proficient knowledge of firearms safety in a written and physical test (age appropriate, of course), or he or she wouldn't graduate. Guns are a fact in this society, and even if a parent didn't want their child around them, that parent sure wouldn't want another kid to accidentally (I'll use that word with children) or negligently (as adults) shoot their child. Repetitive safety training is the answer.

mhdishere
September 16, 2004, 10:44 AM
Third_rail,
My comment wasn't for prevention of criminal actions with explosives, everyone on THR knows that if someone wants to commit a crime they'll go to whatever ends they need to to get the tools to do so. I'm much more concerned with someone just being stupid in handling the stuff.

Given your requirements of storage units 500 feet from any other buildings and mandatory training/licensing, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I could just picture my neighbor having 100 lbs of the stuff in his basement and there being a big hole where my house used to be. If you knew one of my neighbors you'd know this might be an issue. In my area most of the home plots are 80x100 or so, there's no place I could store something like that where, if it went up, it wouldn't damage at least two homes in addition to mine. For that reason I make sure I keep only small amounts of gasoline (usually a gallon or less) for the lawn mower and stuff, I have to run to the station more often but if something bad happens I'm minimizing the potential damage.

I realize that explosives, like firearms, are useful tools. I also think every firearms owner should have safety training, that should go for explosives users too.


I hope I clarified my position, as you certainly did yours.

Tamara
September 16, 2004, 11:28 AM
I would maintain a ban on possession of firearms by convicted violent felons.

I would maintain a ban on firearms in jails and prisons.

...but you repeat yourself. ;)

Mad Man
September 16, 2004, 11:51 AM
I would create a new law: Starting at kindergarten and continuing every year through graduation, every schoolchild would have to go through a day's worth of intensive firearms safety training each semester. He or she would have to demonstrate a proficient knowledge of firearms safety in a written and physical test (age appropriate, of course), or he or she wouldn't graduate. Guns are a fact in this society, and even if a parent didn't want their child around them, that parent sure wouldn't want another kid to accidentally (I'll use that word with children) or negligently (as adults) shoot their child. Repetitive safety training is the answer.


It is interesting -- but not surprising -- that the same people who ridicule the idea of "abstinence only" education for sex ed think it's a great idea for gun safety.

It also works the other way, too, but I don't think as frequently, since the gun culture has a large libertarian faction.

iapetus
September 16, 2004, 11:57 AM
I believe the UK still has a law that says all freemen must practice at least once a week with their longbow. (You know - those evil, military-style assault bows capable of firing up to 12 armour-piercing arrows per minute).

Anyone want a more up-to-date version of that?

Correia
September 16, 2004, 12:01 PM
I would have a three day "cooling off" period before you could purchase a 155mm Atomic Howitzer.

Third_Rail
September 16, 2004, 12:10 PM
mhdishere, storing gasoline in any resident structure should be completely illegal. Gasoline is a lot more dangerous than many high explosives, simply because it's so damn flammable.

goon
September 16, 2004, 12:15 PM
Just as a sidenote, in my imaginary world where I am in charge, there would be no violent criminals.
They would be executed within 10 days of being convicted. That should alow sufficient time for them to appeal their case or try to get a stay of execution.
You wouldn't have death row anymore, it would be more like a sliding board.
Also adding to the decrease in the number of violent felons would be the increase in the number of them being shot by armed citizens.

mhdishere
September 16, 2004, 12:52 PM
Third_Rail,
I store my gasoline in a shed outside my house. Sorry if I was unclear. I've known people who stored 10 or 15 gallons of gas in their basement, which I think is NUTS.

Tamara
September 16, 2004, 12:56 PM
mhdishere, storing gasoline in any resident structure should be completely illegal.

Only if running with scissors is illegal, too.

Stupidity and illegality do not necessarily coincide. No law that would require inane levels of intrusiveness to support should be allowed to stand.

Sungun09
September 16, 2004, 03:48 PM
Everyone of sound mind and mentally mature MUST own a gun

artherd
September 16, 2004, 05:22 PM
I'd write a short and susicnt law, stating unequiviocaly once and for all that guns are an essential tool in secureing liberty and life for every citizen, and that the citizenry's right to own and carry those guns and other weapons will not be changed, altered, or eliminated in any way.

Oh, wait, some jack-hole beat me to the punch three centuries ago.

(I like that police officer = everyone else equality idea, but indeed the one wildcard IS the military. They could easily disarm all police and declare martial law, and we'd be back in Germany 1941.)

I say legalize nukes. They're simply too expensive and unwieldly to be purchased legally by anyone with ill will.

Tony Mig
September 16, 2004, 06:13 PM
I may be the lone man on this one, but I do believe that we do need "some" common sense laws to protect us from those few who shouldn't be allowed access to firearms.
Such as the mentally disturbed, drug addicted, and alcoholics.
Secondly, any law written should be so written that it can not be interpreted in any other way than for the purpose for which it was intended. (yes, I too hate lawyers)

With that said, I'd leave the second admendment in place, with the added clause stating that no local or state law shall circumvent this admendment. In other words, it would become federal law above state's rights.

For the good of the general population, no agency, be it police, FBI, CIA et..al...would have legal access to nuclear, bio, chemical, or any war like mechanical device such as an attack helecopter, tank, submarine, artillery...etc. Yet, any device allowed for police, would also be allowed for the common citizen.

In my world, you would only get one chance to commit a violent crime, if convicted, you get one appeal, if the conviction holds, you die a slow, painful death.....in public.
If you are forced to kill in defense of your life, the life of a loved one, or to protect your private property...(and that includeds your motor vehicle, home, place of business, and your place of employment)....and will not be considered guilty of a crime until your proven to be guilty. If proven inocent, no other legal action from the victums family may at anytime be brought against you.

This is a complicated question needing deep and careful thought, but off the cuff, this is the best I can do for now.....
Perhaps after giving it more thought, I can detail my ideas a little better....

Eskimo Jim
September 16, 2004, 06:18 PM
I'm with Tamara.

the 2nd Amendment and the 14th amendment pretty much say it all. Agencies have trouble enough enforcing those two alone.

Maybe the background check to prevent criminals and insane people from getting firearms would be about the only law that I'd keep.

-Jim

Mad Man
September 19, 2004, 11:19 PM
mhdishere, storing gasoline in any resident structure should be completely illegal.

Only if running with scissors is illegal, too.

Stupidity and illegality do not necessarily coincide. No law that would require inane levels of intrusiveness to support should be allowed to stand.


Running with scisscors doesn't endanger your neighbors' houses.

cratz2
September 20, 2004, 11:41 AM
I have no idea what I would do with the system as it currently is. If I could reform prison and sentencing, a life sentence would put someone in a welded cell that would never be opened until the person was dead or possibly to get additional evidence for a potential new trial. I agree with violent offenders or at least repeat violent offenders would lose their right to own a gun, but I think that for someone that had stolen property on their property because someone else living there put it there to lose their right of ownership is beyond ludricous.

To gun laws, I'm against any form of registration. I think the way to go is that anyone that can legally own can open carry but maybe a license for concealed carry. If ANY crime is committed while carrying, another several years would be added to the sentencing. I'm don't know that I'm not against some sort of basic training course for carry. Nothing hardcore but you would need to be able to place all shots in a 6" target at 7 feet. Sad to say, not everyone can do this. Basic tactics would be taught... Shooting with 9mm FMJs or 357 LSWCs often result in complete penetration. Not everyone knows this. There would be a basic 50 round course with YOUR carry gun... for the trainees safety and knowledge than anything else. Again, some folks NEVER put 50 rounds through their carry gun.

Mostly Harmless
September 20, 2004, 04:06 PM
"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Nothing else is necessary or desirable.

Obviously, a felon needs to be disarmed while incarcerated and serving his/her sentence, but on release regains full use of all his/her unalienable rights. If said felon isn't sufficiently rehabilitated by his/her sentence, then the sentence was not long enough.

In an armed society, there will be an awful lot fewer felons to worry about anyway.

J.

Skunkabilly
September 20, 2004, 04:08 PM
Hmm.

No 100-round drum clips for M1 Garands. That's just way too much firepower for simple civilians.

Other than that, toss 'em. :p

stealthmode
September 20, 2004, 04:35 PM
only a criminal background check

roo_ster
September 20, 2004, 05:17 PM
Scrap 'em all & start over.

Our gov't is just WAY to concerned with inanimate objects, be they guns, explosives, drugs, scissors, whatever.

Yes, some inanimate objects can be a danger in and of themselves (radioactive substances, for example), but most objects only become dangerous in the hands of humans.

Firearms:
No limit on what an individual can own WRT weapons that cause damage using kinetic energy (rifles, machine guns, pistols, whatever). Weapons that cause damage via chemical energy (LAAW, MAAW, recoilless rifles, etc.) would be restricted to...duly constituted militia groups. Any two or more citizens can organize a militia group. Think a gun club with bigger hardware. A similar regimen WRT armed vehicles.

Explosives:
Back in the day, my grandpa had minimal explosives training and very easy access to explosives. He used them to clear stumps, blast gravel, blow beaver dams, & such. A very useful tool that is overly restricted, these days. I would require safe storage of explosives, as mentioned ain posts above. BTW, I keep a few gallons of gasoline in an unattached shed, NEVER in the house/garage.

NBC:
Leave them to the military. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to safely handle them, but the consequences of a screw-up can effect a large area.

Tharg
September 20, 2004, 06:32 PM
I agree that the gun didn't cause the murder to be any worse.

People argue however, that a gun allows a criminal to get a greater number of people in a shorter amount of time.

Personally i think its back to the prison sentense. I think they should be shorter.

yeap - shorter.

Lock em in the cell and leave em there. No food no water. A hole to wizz and crap in. Thier family/friends will have to take the responsiblity of making sure they survive thier short (up to 10 years max?) prison sentence. If the criminal doesn't have any friends/family that love em enough to keep them alive, then i guess they should have been nicer to thier friends/family. Simple crimes could be as short as a month - or a couple of weeks - w/ worse crimes getting longer sentences. One would be suprised what one 6x6 room w/ hardly any contact w/ people will do to someone, especially if they have to rely on friends/families charity in order to survive. Would dramaticly bring down the cost to hold a prisoner. (i hear thats 30grand a year per prisoner in a max security facility? or is it more? - thats more than a lot of people i know MAKE a year being lawful)

I think this would have the effect of less macho proudness of having "done a stint" at X facility. It should also make prison look a LOT less desireable or "livable".

Not sure about wacking them to early should a death sentence be put on a criminal. I have issue w/ this being used eventually on non-offenders. (like that guy that just got out of prison, after serving 20 years, for a rape he didn't commit) Yes i believe NOW there is a minority that are wrongfully accused, i just think if we go capping people willy nilly w/o video of them doing the crime or whatever, then it will become abused and innocent people will be put to death by getting framed or by mistake or whatever. Not something i would agree with.

J/Tharg!

Derby FALs
September 20, 2004, 06:46 PM
Crime took a serious upward spiral when prison terms became more common than restitution.

As for the original question: What part of "shall not be infringed" is not understood?

Muzzleflash
September 20, 2004, 08:03 PM
What I'd do? Shoot you wannabe slavers.
The draft is "involuntary servitude". Nobody owes you or anyone else any part of their lives.

Combat-wombat
September 20, 2004, 08:21 PM
I cut the line at N-B-C weapons. Basically, anything else is fine, from carrying a FN P90 on a sling around to owning a Howitzer. I'm okay with municipal ordinances as well.

Muzzleflash
September 20, 2004, 08:42 PM
RPGs and grenades would be regulated. People can steal those and put them to extremely nasty use. It's not as easy for a thug to steal a howitzer and use it.

I'd require training and licensing to use explosive weaponry. Dynamite and normal home and garden explosives, you'd be able to buy them. People that sell them would have incentives to offer training or require training to be a customer.

For some explosive weaponry, especially semiautomatics like grenade launchers, you'd have to be a member of the reserves. No point in protecting your home with a MK19, but if you want to kick back on the porch and blow things up 300 yards down range, you're going to get the right freaking training.

A drunk with an AK can kill people fooling around in his backyard. A drunk with a MK19 will kill a lot more people.

Here's my ideal fantasy USA: Machineguns and explosives can be bought off the shelf with no background check (CANNOT BE INFRINGED means CANNOT BE INFRINGED) and no taxes or regulations.

Of course, hardened criminals and serious gangsters would be armed to the friggin' teeth, although they'd have a higher chance of being fragged, with a well trained team of men I could live in that fantasy USA that you guys dream of and it would require the national guard to put a stop to our reign of crime.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun laws- if you were in charge, what would you keep?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!