If you had final say on US firearm laws.....you would?


PDA






sonny
June 11, 2003, 04:53 PM
What rules would stay ?....what rules would go?......What new laws would you enact?......what kind of message or stance would you put on it to get the anti's to go along with or understand your plan?
I would first get the FACTS out there and let people see how the antis have lied and lied again about all things firearms......I would then introduce a formal traing program that was FREE and encourage ANYONE to participate........let's face it the guns are out there and people should know how to use them safely and resposably.
I would focus on the FACTS at hand and not make the masses pay for the irresponsible behavier of a few.
I would eliminate the "assualt weapons ban" and allow people that have RTKBA untill they have proven themselves to be a mennace to society.
Concealed carry across state lines?...that's a no brainer!
I could go on and on but I'm interested in others opinions for now,I'll jump back in later.
Before I go ....there is one thing that may be unpopular to many but I would consider a mandatory "drivers licence like" firearms test to be taken ONCE....before you can enjoy a lifetime of firearms freedom.....what do you think?

If you enjoyed reading about "If you had final say on US firearm laws.....you would?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Preacherman
June 11, 2003, 05:07 PM
Sonny, nice points. Here are the rules/laws/regulations I'd put in place:

1. The Second Amendment to the Constitution means what it says. The "arms" it refers to are any weapon that can be carried (i.e. "borne") and operated by a single person, in the standing position, without assistance from another person, provided that that weapon is not capable of firing anything other than solid ammunition (i.e. no explosive or incendiary projectiles).

2. Any US citizen or legal permanent resident is covered by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Non-residents are excluded, and may not keep and bear arms.

3. Anyone covered by the Second Amendment to the Constitution (see 2 above) is entitled to legally carry a firearm concealed on his/her person, concealed in his/her vehicle, etc.

4. For safety reasons, legitimate authorities may forbid unauthorized persons to carry and/or conceal firearms on premises or transportation vehicles (including motor vehicles, aircraft, ships, etc.) under their control. However, any person who qualifies for the record on a law-enforcement-standard course with his/her firearm, so that his/her competence with that firearm to a legally recognized and statutorily mandated standard is verified, shall be exempt from such restrictions. Such qualification shall be certified by the issue of a nationally-valid licence or permit testifying that the person concerned has met the required standard. Annual re-qualification is required.

5. Any death or injury caused by a firearms owner due to his/her negligence, carelessness or stupidity shall be punished as if the death/injury had been deliberately inflicted by criminal action.

6. There shall be no restriction on hollow-point or other defensive ammunition for use by those authorized to keep and bear arms (see 2 above). However, if law enforcement has a legitimate and verifiable concern about the availability of certain types of ammunition, due to the risk to public safety it causes, this ammunition may be restricted from public access, provided that the case for such restriction must be made in court, and pronounced valid and defensible by at least a US Circuit Court of Appeals. No arbitrary restrictions shall be permitted.

7. Any and all national, state and local laws and regulations that may infringe upon the rights listed above will be immediately invalid and unenforceable.

How's that for a start? :D

Henry Bowman
June 11, 2003, 05:18 PM
The National Firearms Act of 1934 and every federal gun thereafter is repealed. The 2nd Amendment applies to the states also. Any restrictions must also apply to LEO and military (except for nuclear devices).

There's a start.

Glock Glockler
June 11, 2003, 05:32 PM
2nd Amendment applies to the states also.

The BoR, as originally intended, is only a limitation on Federal power, not on state power. After the 14th Amendment, when the balance of power shifted dramatically in the direction of the Federal govt, it put the Feds in charge of what would be determined by the states themselves.

Back to the original question: I would deep six all Federal gun control laws. Personally, I don't see why non-citizens should not be allowed to keep and bear arms, are they subhuman? Do they gain or loose a chromosome when they cross the border? If we believe that they are human, then they are entitled to all human rights and it is the responsibility of our govt to enforce those rights within our borders.

RKBA is a human right, not an American privilage.

jsalcedo
June 11, 2003, 05:42 PM
Repeal of all weapons and ammunition laws.

No one without billions dollars is going to be able to build a nuke.
Americans with Billions of dollars don't build nukes.

I'm tired of all the laws concerning what one "MIGHT" do.

Wait till someone does it then throw away the key.

Erik
June 11, 2003, 05:55 PM
I would allow unlimited access to firearms, any make and model.

I would allow unrestricted concealed carry.

If you commit a felony with a firearm, you forfeit the right to keep and bear arms.

If you commit a felony while in possession of a firearm, and it can be reasonably asserted that your possession of said firearm was to further your criminal activity, you forfeit the right to keep and bear arms.

If you are deemed mentally incompetent, you forfeit the right to keep and bear arms until such time as you are deemed no longer mentally incompetent.

States would be able to pass restrictions on juveniles.

Municipalities would be able to pass restrictions on open carry.

The federal government and the states would be able to place limited restrictions on where firearms are not to be carried by the general public, provided that on site secure storage is provided.

MrAcheson
June 11, 2003, 05:58 PM
Ummm actually building a nuke provided you already have some of the necessary knowledge probably only takes a few million. Someone bought a complete war-surplus nuclear weapons plant from the US government once (because of a clerical screw up from someone at DoD). Total cost was only a few hundred thousand, but the government made him sell it back to them instead of selling it to the Aussies for a big profit.

Granted your nuke won't be small and cute, but it will probably work if you can get the materials together. Since we are deregulating government weapons restrictions then getting the materials together will become much much easier.

Private ownership of nukes is stupid stupid stupid. Even if its rare. Someone will eventually do it and they will likely be a nutcase or group of nutcases.

Personally I would get rid of everything except 1934, because frankly I don't like individuals having select-fire weapons. Sorry, I'm not a libertarian. I would apply the 2nd A to the states.

jdege
June 11, 2003, 06:04 PM
1. Repeal all laws restricting firearms and ammunition sales.

2. Use the militia authority to require firearms training in all schools. (I'd allow students to opt-out, but the availability of the training would be mandatory.)

3. Impose a $500/year tax on every citizen who does not own a firearm - to be implemented by requiring that every citizen must either present either a working firearm or a certificate of having paid the tax in order to vote. Funds raised through this tax would be dedicated to providing firearms to those who cannot afford them.

Henry Bowman
June 11, 2003, 06:09 PM
Mr. A - The NFA '34 is about as blatantly un-2A as it gets. What's wrong with full auto. If they are so bad, the LEO's and military should not have them. The 2A is all about allowing us to stay on par with our own military.

tiberius
June 11, 2003, 06:13 PM
One law:

Cary what you want, where you want...until you mess up.

Jeeper
June 11, 2003, 06:26 PM
I know some here definately wont agree with this

Only Laws
1. No violent criminals(felony) or mentally ill allowed to own firearms
2. Background check required for all purchases with more complicated ones for Class 3 type weapons.
3. If you ever use a firearm to commit a crime you lose right FOREVER
4. Age restrictions set by states
5. CCW reciprocity like DL

jsalcedo
June 11, 2003, 06:41 PM
Some of these suggestions propose stricter gun control than we currently have.

Nation wide licensing, backround checks, special taxes. Phooey!

I think under current law there should be a way for felons to earn rights back.

Too many things are felonies as it stands right now.

If someone wants to disarm you all they have to do is make the
felony bar so low that no one will ever be able to keep above it.

For example the paleontologist who bought the rights from a native American Rancher to dig up a T Rex in Montana was convicted of a felony when it turned out the rancher lied and the fossil was on public land.

Or the folks who were convicted of felony drug possesion in 1968 for having one joint.

Insider traders or folks that run a foul of a tax code don't have the right to defend themselves or their families?

Come on guys violent felons already have access to guns and they always will. Laws forbidding felons to own guns isn't going to magically disarm them.

I say no gun control for anyone because gun control does not work period.

Punish people for their actions not their posessions.

Hkmp5sd
June 11, 2003, 06:46 PM
- Anyone may own any type of firearm and purchase that firearm from any individual or company on Earth, without import restrictions or additional taxes.

- Criminals that have served their time may own firearms.

- Mentally ill persons deemed safe enough to walk our streets without supervision may own fireams.

- Parents/Guardians may restrict the firearm access of minors in their care until they reach the age of 18.

- Anyone may carry a firearm openly or concealed anywhere they desire.

- Anyone convicted of murder, regardless of the type of weapon used, will be executed in the town square at noon on the first Saturday occuring one year after his/her sentencing. All appeals must be submitted during that timeframe. No extensions.

- Anyone using a weapon during the commission of a crime shall received 10 years in prison, provided no one was injured. If there were injuries, the individual will receive 20 years in prison for each person injured. No probation or parole.

- Any person using a weapon in a crime that has a previous weapon conviction shall be sentenced to life in prison without parole or execution, at their choice.

sonny
June 11, 2003, 07:04 PM
I disagree with a few things on this thread.....but in short I disagree with the anyone, anywhere, anything goes mentality.
My opinion is that it is not that simple although I like the premise,I just think it would lead to problems.

sonny
June 11, 2003, 07:06 PM
Hkmp5sd.....My last post was not directed at you ...I agree with a bunch of the stuff you suggest ....just not all of it
:)

Feanaro
June 11, 2003, 07:42 PM
If I had the final say I would repeal all the firearms laws other than the purchase laws at eighteen(but not possession), no criminals can purchase either(with the exceptions below). The mentally ill should be judged on a case by case basis by at least ten doctors.

Then I would make all crimes worthy of thirty years (or more) in jail or death. If they don't deserve at least thirty years then you go to a rehabilitation center where they teach you a trade and get you some counceling. If you commit one more felonies you go to jail for forty years, period. No exceptions unless you are proven innocent. Death sentences will have a waiting period of three years. Even if you are in the middle of an appeal when the date rolls around, you are outta luck.

Once released, after five years of good conduct you are given a clean slate. The felony is still on record but you revert back to normal citizen status. Commit one more crime and we dump you in the sea between us and Cuba with an inflated tire and some shark repellant.

Gordon Fink
June 11, 2003, 08:03 PM
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Weapon laws should begin and end right there. If anything, I would amend the article to remove the confusing militia clause and the extraneous comma.

Teaching firearms safety in the shools sounds good, but the paltry number of gun-related accidents wouldn’t justify it at this point.

~G. Fink

LawDog
June 11, 2003, 09:19 PM
First off: Repeal all firearms laws.

Second: Pass a law that requires a bar code on the back of all driver's licenses/ID cards. One set of digits to be issued to anyone who has been convicted of a violent felony, or anyone who has a mental illness which gives him/her a tendency towards violence.

The bar code set belonging to violent felons/violent mentally ill would light up a red light on a bar code scanner -- any and all other numbers would light up a green light.

Sell the bar code readers at cost to anyone with an FFL, and at normal rates to Law Enforcement Agencies.

Red light means that you can't buy firearms.

Green light means you can buy any weapon (gun, knife, sword, club, cannon, etc.) which you have the money to pay for: full-auto, semi-auto, silenced, .50 cal., .70 cal., whatever.

Red light means that you cannot carry a weapon off of your personal property.

Green light means that you can carry a gun, knife, sword, club, chainsaw, whatever; concealed, open, taped to your forehead, however; and you can carry it anywhere, only excepting secure areas of jails, prisons, courtrooms; and on personal property where the owner doesn't want weapons carried.

Voila! -- Instant Check, without all the Washington DC hassles.

Third: Pass a law making it a high-level misdemeanor to intentionally or knowingly carry a weapon during the commission of a violent crime; or for the purposes of committing a violent crime.

Make it a traffic ticket to intentionally or knowingly carry a weapon onto private property where the owner of the property has clearly indicated that he does not want anybody to carry weapons; or past the secure areas of jails, prisons, or courtrooms.

Hmm. I think that is the entire Weapons Section of the LawDog Penal Code.

LawDog

Boats
June 11, 2003, 09:32 PM
Enforce the Second Amendment and write out the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" for violent offenders in the Eighth.

Repeal all current federal gun control laws. Select fire weapons would only be made available to those who had not comitted a violent felony in the past fifteen years and who could also show that they had a quality gunsafe in which to store it (them) when not in close proximity to the weapon(s). Don't want anyone telling you to buy a safe for your more dangerous tools? Then you will have to accept strict liability for damages if a criminal gets hold of your full auto weapon and uses it in the commission of a violent crime following a break in of your place where a safe would have prevented the loss.

Tax credits of $2000 every five years for the purchase of a quality gunsafe.

Mental incompetents would be barred the possession of arms. Independent review is required but can be done after the fact to protect the community during the pendancy of the hearing. The right can be restored by a showing of competence.

As a DoD allocation, require the defense budget to buy from private contractors ammunition to create a running 500 million total round national surplusage of equal parts each .30-06, 7.62, 5.56, .45ACP, and 9mm ball, tracer, and AP and resell it all to qualified (no felony criminal record for past 15 years and/or violent misdemeanor in the past five ) civilian buyers at cost with free shipping, a sort of a Super CMP. The CMP would also be authorized to sell surplus M-14s, M-16s and various SAWs to qualified buyers with the requisite storage or acceptance of strict liability. Your tax dollars finally at work on making every small arms munition for the past 100 years widely available and cheap to practice with.

Using federal lands used or acquired in each of the nation's congressional districts, establish at least one full scale shooting range with a minimum 1000 yard rifle range space permitting.

First firearms offense involving violence 12 years--no parole. Second offense 25 years minimum to life. Kill or maim anyone in the commission of a felony, you get a firing squad of civilian volunteers after one mandatory appeal at the state level and one mandatory appeal at the federal level. You will be given a chance at a DNA test if one is demanded for your defense against a crime where such evidence may exonerate you.

Greg L
June 11, 2003, 10:03 PM
The good Padre sez:
1. ... provided that that weapon is not capable of firing anything other than solid ammunition (i.e. no explosive or incendiary projectiles).

So any rifle/pistol/shotgun in any caliber that there has ever been a tracer round made for that caliber is banned? I don't think that there has ever been a .458 Win Mag tracer manufactured but other than that most every other one is gone.

2. Any US citizen or legal permanent resident is covered by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Non-residents are excluded, and may not keep and bear arms.

Kind of blows the whole "The BOR covers basic human rights that you get because you are human rather than where you live" argument right out of the water. Why does my cousin visiting from England not have the right to defend my kids from attack during the time that he volunteered to watch them while Mrs. L. & I went out to dinner and a movie.

5. Any death or injury caused by a firearms owner due to his/her negligence, carelessness or stupidity shall be punished as if the death/injury had been deliberately inflicted by criminal action.

So all the people who have posted here about having a ND should be in jail? Deliberate intent usually carries a much harsher punishment than negligence.

7. Any and all national, state and local laws and regulations that may infringe upon the rights listed above will be immediately invalid and unenforceable.

But an international "law" passed by the UN (like WJC wanted us to submit to) is ok?

I think I'll stick with "The gun is a tool, if you shoot someone it is the same as hitting them with a hammer or a shovel" crowd. How you managed to hurt (either physically or fiscally) someone shouldn't be given more weight than the fact that you actually did.

Tiberius has the right idea.

Greg

Hkmp5sd
June 12, 2003, 07:30 AM
Tax credits of $2000 every five years for the purchase of a quality gunsafe.

That is an excellent idea!

foghornl
June 12, 2003, 08:47 AM
Make sure that it is understood that "The People" in 2A means "the individual citizen".

Vermont-style carry everywhere. Full reciprocity in all states, just like marriage & driving.

Anyone can own anything they can afford to buy.

No mag limits.

No BATF-E.

If you can pass the background check to buy, you can carry anywhere [except maybe courtroom & jails]

How different would 9-11-01 been had there been 1 or 2 "packing" per plane ? ? ? ?

///smarmy mode on

Permanently attached muzzles for Sens. Fienswine, Boxhead, UpChuck Schumer & Klintoon.

///smarmy mode off

sm
June 12, 2003, 08:55 AM
I too was going to say Repel all Laws.

LawDog's Penal Code : Weapon Section :

Sir-- some very good points and ideas. Only one I kinda question ; is the no firearm in courtroom. I can appeciate from an LEO view--I'm just thinking from a personel experience as a juror.

Tamara
June 12, 2003, 08:58 AM
There is no Constitutional basis for any federal firearms law.

There's a pretty well-defined list of what Congress can do in the Constitution; "pass gun control laws" isn't on it. They used to use the regulation of interstate commerce as their excuse, now they don't even bother worrying about trifles like "Constitutionality".

sm
June 12, 2003, 09:26 AM
Tamara,
That's why I'm against any law concerning firearms.

I don't like the fact the DMV would have to issue anything with a restriction...walks like a duck...must be a LAW in there somewhere.

Granted we have some persons of mental defect , etc. But we don't lock up the kitchen to keep them from stoves, and ban matches either.

Gets back to personal responsibility and all.

[not real keen on laws or being told what to do anyway]

Constitution -good point!

Glock Glockler
June 12, 2003, 10:07 AM
Select fire weapons would only be made available to those who had not comitted a violent felony in the past fifteen years

After released, does a violent felon have the right to freedom of religion, speech, association, not to be unreasonably searched, the right to trial by jury, etc? Why is it that we have no problem recognizing their other rights but we won't recognize their right to RKBA?

When someone goes to prison, they do so to pay their debt to society, so if the debt is paid why should any restrictions be placed upon them? Seems to me that prison sentences should be longer, with more emphasis on rehabilitating the criminal and remaking them into a functional member of society as opposed to giving them an abbreviated sentence because you have to make room for dope smokers and throwing them into a socialistic/barbaric environment and expecting improvement by crossing your fingers.

There's also the problem that a lot of these career criminals come from families of low charachter, so how do you approach the cultural problem present in our country? How do we become a nation of people with higher charachter?

Boats
June 12, 2003, 10:39 AM
After released, does a violent felon have the right to freedom of religion, speech, association, not to be unreasonably searched, the right to trial by jury, etc? Why is it that we have no problem recognizing their other rights but we won't recognize their right to RKBA?


Well back in a time with more character, the vast majority of those armed robbers, rapists, child molestors, kidnappers, horse-jackers, and whatnot would've had their necks stretched until they were dead, hence my suggestion to modify the meaning of the Eighth Amendment while we're playing wish list. Maybe a return broad and quick executions would avoid the problem of "re-arming" violent felons?

You don't arm your own enemy if you have any sense and since the recidivism rate for these jackals of society is in the 60th percentile somewhere, it is perfectly reasonable to disarm felons, as even the old colonies did it and allow ones who've demonstrated the capacity to be trusted to rejoin later. If we want to get technical, I'd make the "no auto weapons" part of a post prison release supervision document. You want out? Agree to this.

jsalcedo
June 12, 2003, 11:06 AM
Disarm the felons......

Felons are already armed if they desire law or no law.

What is the point of having gun laws? They only apply to the law abiding. (people who don't rob and murder anyway)

Most gun shop owners "normally" wouldn't sell to a gang banger or someone obviously whacked out.

But now if the NICS comes back they will sell a gun to anyone
gang colors, needle sticking out of the arm, dead baby for a hat etc... Because they are following the government's rules..

All these laws tend to eliminate the normal self regulation we humans used to apply to our words and actions.

But the point is.... with all the laws on the books already regarding felons not having guns, do these laws make one bit of difference?

Has there ever been a person bent on mayhem and criminality that has not been able to fulfill their desire because of a federal law or state law prohibiting their behavior or what kind of weapon they can purchase?

I don't want bad guys to have guns either but wishing won't make it so and neither will 20,000 gun laws.

MrAcheson
June 12, 2003, 11:13 AM
Personally I think the whole reason we don't see lots of shootouts with select-fire weapons today is because they are so rare thanks to the 1934 law restricting them.

If they were easily accessible to the general public, they would soon be easily accessible to the criminal element through the usual criminal channels (theft and corrupt FFLs).

Ben Franklin said it is folly to trade freedom for temporary security. I believe history has shown that trading away easy access to select-fire weapons has provided meaningful security which is very long lasting. This is as opposed to most modern gun laws which at best reduce crime for a few years.

H Romberg
June 12, 2003, 11:45 AM
Ditto Tamara.

I'd repeal all laws covering POSESSION of anything with the exception of WMD. Call me a wuss, but I really don't want some of my neighbors keeping Ebola in the fridge.

erikm
June 12, 2003, 02:47 PM
I'm not a resident or citizen of the United States, but I'll have a go. I'm a scifi and space enthousiast, so some of the rules and regulations are for things that don't quite exist yet. This is my version, after some time to think the issue over and take some notes. Note that even though I talk about 'weapons' I'm mostly talking about firearms and things that go boom.

Commentary is certainly welcome.
All current laws, rules and regulations regulating weapons and ammunition possession, sale or manufacture are hereby void. The exception is the second amendment to the constitution. Further, all current minimum sentences and fines are also declared void.

Every citizen or legal permanent resident over the age of majority has the right to keep and bear arms, except if that right has been removed for insanity or a violent or sexual crime conviction and has not been restored. People with the right to keep and bear arms are further refered to as 'permitted citizens'. People without this right are further refered to as 'unpermitted citizens'. *16

Permitted citizens may manufacture, possess or use in a legal fashion any weapons and ammunition of a type that can be or has been used by an infantry unit (of any type) and that is manportable whole or disassembled *1 and is not covered by sections 4 or 5.

Manufacture, possession or use of nuclear, biological, chemical, nanotechnological or antimatter weapons without license is prohibited. The exceptions are:
a) The possession of nuclear weapons on a US registered spacecraft more than 400 kilometers away from a planetary body with a diameter of over 600 kilometers.
b) The use of nuclear weapons by a US registered spacecraft more than 1600 kilometers away from a planetary body with a diameter of over 600 kilometers. *2
c) Nonlethal chemical weapons do not fall under this section. They fall under section 5.

Licenses to manufacture, possess or use weapons covered in this section will be issued on a 'must show legitimate need' basis only. The granting or denial of issuance must be made known to the applicant within 366 calender days of filing the application. *3

Manufacture or possession of ammunition or weapons with explosive, incendiary or nonlethal chemical warheads is prohibited without license. Manufacture or possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited without license.

Licenses to manufacture or possess weapons covered in this section will be issued on a 'shall issue' basis. The granting or denial of issuance must be made known to the applicant within 21 working days of filing the application. *4

Private property owners, or in the case of rented or leased property, renters or leaseholders ('proprietors') may prohibit weapons and ammunition on their property. In this case:
a) They must clearly indicate this visually at every entrance. Violators must be offered an opportunity to leave or store weapons. *5
b) They must provide individual, safe and secure storage facilities. *7
c) They are legally liable for personal physical injuries that occur on their premises, if these could have been reduced or prevented had weapons been available.
d) Proprietors may grant individual exemptions to weapons bans at their discretion.
e) Nothing in this section prohibits the enclosed storage of weapons or ammunition in vehicles, even if weapons are prohibited on the property.

Permitted citizens may carry open or concealed any legally owned weapon or ammunition in public anywhere, with the following exceptions:
a) In a courtroom while court is in session, except by permission of the presiding judge.
b) On an active military installation, except by permission of the commanding officer. Active members of the military are exempt from this section. *6
c) In a police station, jail or prison, except by permission of the commanding officer.
d) On an aircraft or spacecraft, except by permission of the commanding officer. Cockpit or bridge crewmembers are exempt from this section.
Under these exceptions the stipulations from section 6 still apply.

The use of force by people to stop violent crimes in progress and/or in the defence of the citizen's person, family or property (by 'intervenors') is permitted at any time. The following rules apply:
a) Intervenors are immune from charges under sections 6 or 7. *8
b) Intervenors are liable for damages for collateral damage occuring as a result of their actions. *9
c) Nonpermitted intervenors are immune from weapons possessions charges if they immediately surrender any weapons and ammunition in their possession to law enforcement. *10
d) Intervenors using weapons or ammunition covered in section 5 they are not licensed for are immune from weapons possessions charges if they immediately surrender any covered weapons and ammunition in their possession. *11
e) Force used must be in proportion to the threat posed to the intervenor, victim, bystanders or property. Use of excessive force by the intervenor must be demonstrated in a court of law. *12
f) Criminals, their estate or their survivors may not sue the intervenor for damages unless the use of excessive force by him against them can be demonstrated in a court of law.

Federal, state and local law enforcement authorities will, upon request by a person, conduct a background check of that person for the purposes of weapons ownership. The authority will submit to the requesting person a written declaration containing the applicant's personal information, the summarized check results, the background check date and an individual reference number and key. The issuing authority will keep a file containing the applicant's personal information, date, full and summarized check results. Further, the following regulations apply:
a) Background check files are kept by the issuing authority in a strong encrypted format, sorted by reference number and issuing date only and accessible only with the correct key. Keys are not retained or kept on record. The method of encryption and any algorithms used shall be available to anyone on request.
b) Background check files are purged three months after check issuance.
c) Background check results are accessible to anyone with the proper reference number and key combination. Full requests results can be requested by mail or in person only, personal information, result summaries and check dates can be requested over the phone. Giving an incorrect reference number and key combination is not a criminal act per se.
d) Unless the requesting person is a fugitive from justice, failing a requested background check is not grounds for arrest.
e) Not possessing a current background check declaration is not grounds for arrest, legal action or law enforcement action.
f) Charges no greater than $50 may be levied for performing the check.
g) A background check may take no more than 3 working days to complete.

A Vendor may request that the buyer present a current check declaration as part of any transaction involving weapons or ammunition. The vendor may then use the reference number and key to verify the declaration's validity and currency. The vendor may keep a record only of the check date and the applicant's name. *13

The owner and user of weapons or ammunition are legally liable for deaths, injuries or damage caused by their storage or use. *14 The following exemptions apply:
a) The owner is exempt if he can prove the weapons or ammunition were taken by force from his person or stolen from a properly designed, built and locked secure storage facility prior to its use. *15
b) The owner and user are exempt if the use can be shown to have been in accordance with section 8.


Footnotes and commentary (bold numerals) on the above:
Yes, this does include some howitzers, recoilless rifles and kinetic-kill missiles. If you can tote it, you can have it (excepting sections 4&5)

This is designed to cover devices like the Orion drive or other pulse-based reaction spacedrives. They're currently mostly theoretical but I don't want to stop R&D.

For instance, I can see someone doing nanotechnological research (hopefully offworld!) buying a small nuclear weapon to destroy his lab if he has a grey goo accident.

Yes, you can buy HE, HEAT, WP or puke gas rounds if you've been a good boy. Good boys and girls can also buy machine guns and light autocannon.

I've heard things about Texas 30.06 signs. This is what I'm thinking of.

The commanding officer could, for instance, hire a sharpshooter to control the local prairiedog (or rat) population.

In other words, guarded lockable lockers, not a rack.

Criminals don't respect gun free zones. Accidental heroes shouldn't be punished for not doing so either.

Use the proper weapon for the task and either don't miss or don't fire.

Yes, cons who get hold of a gun in the heat and stop a violent crime shouldn't be charged if they immediately forfeit the gun.

And yes, you can use that unlicensed machine gun if you then forfeit it.

This is poorly worded. Basically, you can shoot armed robbers but not shoplifters.

Yes, the section is longwinded. The idea is a verifiable but essentially unfiled 'certificate of good conduct' a shopkeeper can ask for and verify.

Yes, you are liable for damages caused by your improperly stored (but permitted) nukes or an ammunition explosion in your ammunition bunker.

Keeping guns in a safe when not in use is a good idea.

Yes, I'm not going into rights restoration here. It's too complex an issue. I'm all for restoration in cases of truly going straight and keeping your nose squeaky clean.

Cheers,
ErikM :evil:

Glock Glockler
June 12, 2003, 03:14 PM
Personally I think the whole reason we don't see lots of shootouts with select-fire weapons today is because they are so rare thanks to the 1934 law restricting them.

Ask yourself: How difficult would it be for me to convert a semi-automatic to select fire or fully automatic? Now, I don't want that topic to be discussed here, I just want you to run through that little mental exercise and contemplate the obstacles in that task to someone who is truely determined to complete it.

Do you really think that law prevents criminals from having a select fire or fully automatic weapon?

For Homer's sake, the military ditched full-auto on their standard infantry rifles because it wasn't practical. Spray and pray, which is what full-auto lends itself to, is not nearly as effective as aimed fire by well-trained troops. Clint Smith himself said that it "turns money into noise, so why is it such a valuable tool that criminals would become super-criminals if they only had it?

1 - The law is not effective at someone who is determined to disobey it.

2 - Having it makes them no more effective.

So what, exactly would said law accomplish, aside from letting soccer-moms feel good that those nasty select-fire rifles are apparently off the streets?

Hkmp5sd
June 12, 2003, 03:29 PM
For Homer's sake, the military ditched full-auto on their standard infantry rifles because it wasn't practical. Spray and pray, which is what full-auto lends itself to, is not nearly as effective as aimed fire by well-trained troops.

And if you need proof of this statement, look at the North Hollywood shootout (recently reenacted on TV). The 2 BGs fired thousands of rounds and killed no one. Yet, one crazed woman armed with a bathtub managed to kill five children.

The reason full auto weapons aren't used more in crimes is the exact same reason the so-called "semi-automatic assault weapon" isn't used in many crimes, it is not the prefered weapon of choice by criminals. There are plenty illegal full autos on the streets and anyone that wants one can have it just as easily as they can buy crack cocaine. The fact that legal full-auto owners jump through hoops to get one doesn't have anything to do with criminal misuse of machineguns.

jdege
June 12, 2003, 06:56 PM
Full auto makes a great deal of sense, for FPF.

If you have a MG on a tripod, with swappable barrels, and a pallet load of ammo, you can do wonders at keeping the screaming hordes at bay.

But you can't do full auto in meaningful sense in an assault rifle. It's only 140 rounds to cookoff temps :fire: in an M16.

geekWithA.45
June 13, 2003, 02:08 PM
If you have a MG on a tripod, with swappable barrels, and a pallet load of ammo, you can do wonders at keeping the screaming hordes at bay.

Better yet, a water coolant system! Didn't the Vickers have something like that?


erikm, and others:

Too complex. You've gotta start with First Principles, (ie: the right of the peacable individual human to bear arms shall not ever be messed with by anyone for any reason ) because if you try to solve it at the level of procedure, you'll always find a circumstance under which the procedure breaks, and or fails to serve the first principle.

erikm
June 13, 2003, 02:50 PM
Better yet, a water coolant system! Didn't the Vickers have something like that?
Water cooling was IIRC very common for ground medium machine guns until after WWI. And even after that water cooling turned up from time to time. I'm fairly sure one of the bigger swiss 24mm antitank guns had a water jacket.
I'm also certain the OTO Melara Compact 76mm naval gun used around the world today (the USN calls it the Mark 75 (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/weapons/wep-76mm.html)) is water cooled. Water cooling is more or less mandatory if the gun is spec'ed to fire 80 to 120 rounds (for the Super Rapid variant) per minute. This is a 3" artillery piece with a range of more than 10 miles. :D

Cheers,
ErikM :evil:

lee n. field
June 13, 2003, 03:23 PM
They'd all go.

Anybody who'd ever advocated restrictions of 2nd ammendment rights would be well advised to STFU about it.

Anybody who'd ever participated in restrictions of 2nd ammendment rights would be subject to strict reparations for damages done, punative confiscation of property, jail time and/or banishment.

Trisha
June 13, 2003, 03:26 PM
No firearms laws. No restrictions. Social consciousness and political participation would probably change remarkably, and quickly were the intestinal fortitude and prerequisite spine found to repeal everything , and I don't think that would be bad.

We're a unique Republic, yes? Unlike any other Nation in all of recorded history - so let's claim it and live the vision.

Of course, I'd also repeal all laws concerning narcotics, save that anyone with measurable narcotics or alcohol present (to any test, to any degree) operating or employed by any transportation, security (including all Defense departments), power, emergency services (including medical/pharmecutical) or communication system receives a mandatory five years hard labor, first offense, no appeal. Private employers are free to add their employees to that standard at their discretion.

I believe it would create something wonderful. . .

Trisha

geekWithA.45
June 13, 2003, 03:37 PM
...Anybody who'd ever participated in restrictions of 2nd ammendment rights would be ...


Hey, waitaminute!

Doesn't the federal form have a question about participating in activities that restrict people's civil rights? Wouldn't that bar legislators and LEOs from posessing arms?

Well? Wouldn't it?:neener:

cordex
June 13, 2003, 05:40 PM
Hmm ... seems that some people here have fallen into the "Eeek! It's a (Machine GUN! / explosive or incindiary cartridge / something else I saw used as an impossibly destructive weapon on a movie)! There must be at least some form of regulation over and above what you'd regulate the guns that I'm interested in."

Personally, I've never understood how someone could refuse to regulate shotguns but be up in arms about outlawing select-fire weapons. Subguns especially.
*sigh*
Which gets more projectiles out faster, hmmm? A few loads of 00 buck or a magazine from a subgun? Are you going to tell me that a Skorpion machine pistol in .32 ACP is more worthy of control than a shotgun? Gimme a break.

I'll sign on to LawDog's post, I think.

I do have one question for those who say "NO WMD!". Not that I disagree, but where do you draw the line between conventional weapon and WMD? Which (if any) of the following list would be WMD?
Firecracker
Flashbang
Hand grenade
RPG
155mm explosive projectile
Case of dynamite
500 lb iron bomb
2000 lb cluster bomb
MOAB
A very small nuke

... just curious.

Trisha
June 13, 2003, 06:16 PM
I think you forgot one, cordex:

Ignorance (gross stupidity qualifies too, I guess)

cordex
June 13, 2003, 08:22 PM
I think you forgot one, cordex:

Ignorance (gross stupidity qualifies too, I guess)
*laugh*

In my defense, I was limiting my list of potential "Weapons of Mass Destruction" to explosive devices of some construction, but I think you did correctly identify the major WMD that is extraordinarily simple to possess. No background checks, age limits or safety classes required.

S_O_Laban
June 14, 2003, 05:43 AM
I like the keep it simple idea.

The Ten Commandments would be a good start.

ziiiiiiiiiipppp there, nomex suit on. Flame on

:D :D

If you enjoyed reading about "If you had final say on US firearm laws.....you would?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!