[Tipro]

Many times we hear about the onerous gun laws already in place, but are there any new laws, consistent with the RKBA, that you would like to see implemented? Any laws that would improve our situation as responsible gun owners? My inquiry is not totally out of curiosity, as I need some ideas for a small project. Preferably new statutes, and not constitutional amendments. State or Federal, you chose.

And no, writing a new law which repeals an old one doesn't count, and neither does enforcing laws already on the books (e.g. the 2A) :rolleyes:

[C0untZer0]

I'd like to see an amendment that more clearly links self-defense as an intrinsic right inextricable to the right to exist:

We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and that chief among these is the right to exist, and intrinsic to the right to exist is the right to defend one’s own life. Congress has a duty to honor the right of a citizen to exist. When a person takes action to physically harm another, they forfeit their right to live and place themselves in grave peril of being killed. Congress shall pass no law designed to protect or benefit aggressors, nor pass any law punishing citizens justifiably defending themselves, their family and loved ones.

maybe an additional amendment:

We hold that the right to self defense and defense of one’s family and property from the nefarious malice of criminals to be a basic and inalienable human right of every citizen. While it might be prudent for the people to elect constables whose goal is to keep the peace and enforce reasonable laws, the right of the citizen to defend one’s property, one’s family and one’s life and limb, shall never be usurped. The right to self defense being thus firmly established, the right of citizens to procure, to keep and to bear arms shall never be infringed.

I'd like to see an amendment that sets firearms as a separate class of property:

No citizens shall be disarmed, nor their arms taken from them, unless temporarily so on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury and permanently only after being convicted of a capital, or otherwise infamous crime after receiving due process of law. Any citizen who has had their arms taken from them and are found innocent or exonerated have a right to the speedy return of their arms.

And:

The right to bear arms being necessary for the existence of a free society, Congress shall make no law creating any taxes, fees, tariffs nor levies on the manufacture, sale, purchase, transportation, ownership, possession or carriage of arms by the People.

[C0untZer0]

I also want to point out that laws are one thing - but as we've seen SCOTUS is the court of first resort for Second Amendment rights.

So AFAIC, I'd rather see amendments - not laws.

[Salmoneye]

Any New Laws You Would Like To See?

Um...

No...

[Johnny Dollar]

Um...

No...

Can't be said better! :D Wholeheartedly agree. Send them all home! :D
I really love Vermont. :cool:

[AirForceShooter]

New laws?? Hell no

Get rid of a whole bunch of old ones??? The list is too long to type here

AFS

[towboat_er]

I think that for every new law 10 old ones need to be removed.

[C0untZer0]

The underlying assumption that any situation can be made better with a new law is false.

Most situations however can be made better by erasing existing bad laws - whether it's gun laws, tax law, or whatever.

[Hunter125]

I would like to see national carry made a reality. I've never understood why it can't be just like driver licenses. Run by the state, but recognized by all, take a competency exam before you are licensed the first time with a renewal every so often. Then if your license is revoked for whatever reason, as long as it's not for a violent crime of some sort, you could just go retake the exam and get relicensed.

[zoom6zoom]

Absolutely!

I'd like a law that says for every new law passed, three existing ones must be repealed.

Would work well for government programs, too.

[HankB]

A new gun law I'd like to see passed?

ABSOLUTELY!

"The National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 are hereby repealed effective immediately."

[beatledog7]

We pass laws to solve problems caused by existing laws rather than just dumping the offending laws. How dumb is that?

The law I'd like to see:

"Congress shall pass no law whose purpose could be served by repealing the existing laws and/or regulations which created the conditions that brought about the need for said new law."

[Tipro]

OP here: I perfectly understand the sentiment of most of these responses. For this class I'm in we are supposed to draft a new law, and I thought something RKBA related would be fun. Then, however, I drew a blank on what that law would be, and thought y'all might be able to help. Guess I was on the right track when I couldn't think of any new, good, statutes.

If anyone thinks of a good law though, I'm all ears.

[C0untZer0]

One of the reasons people oppose HR 822 is that they don't think the feds have any business making gun laws period - the federal government should just stay out of it.

[Warp]

I would like a law that forced all members of a legislature to abide by the exact same rules, laws, regulations, etc, as everybody else. Also a law that prevents anything from applying to them and not to everybody else. No differentiation. No special treatment.

Mostly what we need to do is get rid of laws.

[Jacob L Freeman]

Warp - Amen!

My position on firearms (among other issues) is sometimes misunderstood by others.... So I say with caution, that I would like for criminal background checks to be a little more.... thorough, in regards to the buyer's mental health. I have absolutely no idea how this would be done without invading the person's privacy or their rights, I just feel it is important to make stronger attempts to keep firearms out of the hands of people who are unstable.

On the other hand, private party sales are just that, and allow anyone to purchase a gun, which I firmly believe is a good thing, even if it has some unfortunate side effects. So perhaps new laws for background checks would do what so many new laws do.... nothing.

Wait, I know! A law requiring all persons to be armed at all times would make the bad guys too scared to try anything, heh heh. Good luck passing that in California.

[Pilot]

I wish Congress would just stop passing ANY new laws. More laws = less freedom.

[SleazyRider]

I'd like to see caps put on lawyers' legal fees so the average working-class Joe can afford legal counsel without selling the ranch.

[bluethunder1962]

Open carry, same class for all states. Same law for all states all cities, Untill they can have a police officer follow each person around you should have the right to protect yourself anyway you can.

[ThorinNNY]

Yes, or well, maybe. I`d like to every one of the 50 states to accept CCW permits AND prohibit petty tyrants like mayors, governors etc from refusing to honor out of state permits. I think this may already be covered by the "Full Faith and Credit clause". Now all we need is honest men and women with the guts to enforce it. :banghead:

[Justin]

A law requiring the BATFE to approve NFA tax stamps in under 90 days would be pretty excellent.

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk

[pikid89]

Id like to see the required qualification scores for ccw permits in some states removed. When you must "qualify" for a "right" it is no longer a "right" but a "privlege" that can be removed when you no longer "qualify"

[Diamondback6]

I'd like one... a Constitutional Amendment that puts an automatic sunset on all Federal laws every ten years.

If they have to fight to hold the ground they have, they'll be too busy to take any more of ours, right?

[Jim NE]

I'd rather see amendments - not laws.

I generally don't agree, except...
I'd like one... a Constitutional Amendment that puts an automatic sunset on all Federal laws every ten years.

If they have to fight to hold the ground they have, they'll be too busy to take any more of ours, right?


...maybe that one.

[General Geoff]

A law that removes all law enforcement/government exemptions from existing gun laws. Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.

[Warp]

General Geoff: I like where you are going with that, but may or may not agree based on how far you take it/what you define as "gun laws". In terms of law enforcement being allowed to possess categories or types of firearms that their citizens are not...I would gladly vote for equal restrictions. In CA, for example, you can't buy a .50. So, if they want it that way, no CA LEA should be able to have one, either.

It's the same basic idea as what I originally posted.

I think we need to get rid of a great deal of laws/rules/regulations that apply differentially (that a word?) to different people and different classes of people. We have too many government officials/employees and wealthy/connected who get special treatment.

[General Geoff]

General Geoff: I like where you are going with that, but may or may not agree based on how far you take it/what you define as "gun laws".
Gun law: any law that regulates the purchase, ownership, possession, carry, or usage of firearms. Meaning states like illinois and hawaii would then have unarmed police officers.

[Warp]

Gun law: any law that regulates the purchase, ownership, possession, carry, or usage of firearms. Meaning states like illinois and hawaii would then have unarmed police officers.

See, I think that goes a bit too far. Like I said, I like where you are coming from/going with this, and generally agree, but there ought to be some exceptions. Mostly I am thinking about SECURE locations with restricted/controlled access where every single person who enters is screened, and there exists 24/7 armed (government) security. I don't expect to be able to carry a gun if I visit somebody in prison/jail, tour important buildings like the White House (I have done that, not that you can really do that today...), or enter a courthouse to testify in a court of law. I do, however, expect an armed presence from government employees. (secret service, local sheriff's office, whatever)

[GEM]

Flame on:

No business or institution that is open to the public may ban the carry of firearms unless it can be demonstrated that there is a highly technical risk to carrying of the firearm (ex. your gun and MRI). No penalty or liability can be assigned to that business or institution based on the actions with the firearm by the person carrying it.

No employer can ban the carry of a firearm by an employee unless it can be demonstrated that there is a highly technical risk to carrying of the firearm (ex. your gun and MRI). No penalty or liability can be assigned to that business or institution based on the actions with the firearm by the person carrying it.

[beatledog7]

I'd like to see caps put on lawyers' legal fees

No, thanks. That's very anti-free enterprise. I'd rather see tort reform, which if done right would have a similar effect.

[Warp]

Flame on:

No business or institution that is open to the public may ban the carry of firearms unless it can be demonstrated that there is a highly technical risk to carrying of the firearm (ex. your gun and MRI). No penalty or liability can be assigned to that business or institution based on the actions with the firearm by the person carrying it.

No employer can ban the carry of a firearm by an employee unless it can be demonstrated that there is a highly technical risk to carrying of the firearm (ex. your gun and MRI). No penalty or liability can be assigned to that business or institution based on the actions with the firearm by the person carrying it.

I'd rather not violate rights.

Property rights are important.

[GEM]

Ah, the ancient debate - property rights are important but the right to protect yourself trumps that.

That's why you can use lethal force in SD. Your right to your life trumps the right to life of the attacker.

IMHO, my right to protect myself trumps your right to ban carry in a business open to the public. Note, that as a business person you don't have absolute control of your property. You can't sell kiddie porn, you must have clean restrooms, etc. Thus the absolute control of property argument fails as it is not what is actually the case for a business.

Life is the most important right.

[Warp]

Ah, the ancient debate - property rights are important but the right to protect yourself trumps that.

No.

You chose (with very few exceptions) to enter their property. You cannot CHOOSE to enter somebody else's property while refusing follow their rules because you don't like them.

IMHO, my right to protect myself trumps your right to ban carry in a business open to the public

What you have is the right NOT to visit said business so that you can stay armed.

[Frank Ettin]

Let's end this thread drift. The OP asked folks to tell us what laws they'd like to see - not to debate people's choices.

[bigbore442001]

What new laws would I like to see? Ok. To get back on threat this is what I would like to see.

1. For my home state of Massachusetts to allow the use of handguns for deer hunting with a striaght walled case. As an example, southeastern New Hampshire has portions of the state that do not allow rifles for deer hunting due to the human population. They do allow handguns in .357,41,44,45,480 and 50 for deer hunting. Why not Massachusetts? We are a shotgun and muzzleloading state. Many hunters now use sabot slugs that are the equivalent of a 45-70 handload. Same is true of the inline rifles. I hunt my home state with an inline rifle and I recall running loads pushing a 300 grain sabot at 1900 fps. What is the difference if I hunt with a TC Contender in 44 magnum with a 240 grain XTP at 1600 fps or a tad more? In my mind, none. It is more of a fact that the law was put in place about one hundred years ago when these things did not exist.

2. For Connecticut to allow non residents to use revolvers on deer for private land hunting. Last year Connecticut allowed hunters to use revolvers for deer hunting on private land. Non residents, unless you own land, were excluded. Why? I had a non resident permit for Connecticut since I was 19( I am 46 now). I have been good enough to carry concealed and hunt small game/varmints in the Nutmeg State for 27 years but not good enough to hunt deer on land I can use a rifle? Nonsense.

3. For Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island to allow muzzleloading handguns for deer hunting. Northern New England allows it during their special season and do not have issues with it. A modern muzzleloading handgun like a CVA Optima, Kahnke M82 or a custom TC barrel put them in to the hot 44 magnum class which can take deer cleanly. So far I have taken three wild boar and one red deer with a muzzleloading handgun. It is funny that in both RI and CT I can hunt with a 16" barreled carbine but if I switch the grip to a pistol grip somehow it is less effective.

4. For both Massachusetts and Rhode Island to become shall issue states. The old patroon mentality must go and we need to be more in line with other enlightened states.

Hopefully this is on track.

[Gottahaveone]

Just one...TERM LIMITS. For every level of elected position from POTUS to local Dog Catcher.......

[Crashbox]

I wouldn't mind seeing a national law similar to what Kennesaw, Georgia has, REQUIRING possession of a firearm unless there are personal, religious, etc. objections. In other words, "Constitutional Carry" would be a requirement for law-abiding citizens.

[Warp]

I would fight against a law requiring possession or ownership of a firearm.

Then again if the required had an exception for personal objections there isn't much actual point to the law, and it then becomes just another feel-good that doesn't really do anything.

[TrickyDick]

A stupidity test would be nice. I mean, everyone has the right to bear arms, but some people scare me when they don't understand the basic fundamentals regarding firearms and the responsibility that comes with them. i.e. holding a pistol sideways, referring to hi-cap rifles as machine guns/ assault rifles. Insisting that because they carry a pistol, they're now Johnny law.

I don't like restrictions on alot of things, but sometimes it just hurts my brain to see people do foolish things with firearms.

[Warp]

A stupidity test would be nice.

Not really.

[Mike OTDP]

I'll play...

First, I want a national preemptive act. All state and local legislation pertaining to the purchase, ownership, or transportation of firearms or ammunition overridden, any attempt to pass or enforce such legislation shall constitute Rebellion Against the United States. I could see a proviso allowing state or local governments to prosecute violations of the uniform national laws if the Federal Government elects not to prosecute. Right now, the United States is a crazywork quilt of laws. We need one uniform law.

Second, I want a Personal FFL to replace the Curio & Relic license. The C&R is great if you are buying older guns, but not that great if you are buying newer stuff. And going through a dealer is a PITA if you are buying high-end target arms.

Third, I want suppressors removed from NFA. Require NICS if you want, but the whole NFA rigamarole? I could see rewording the Any Other Weapon category and moving "gadget guns" out of the NFA as well.

Fourth, I want import/export reform. Getting rid of the infamous ATF import point system for pistols would be a good start, but I'd like to see firearm owners have the ability to import arms...and export them for repair. There are several makes of very-high-end target pistols (Match Guns, for example) that don't have much support in the United States. If you need repair work, you're SOL - because the whole idea was that you sent the gun back to the factory. We live in a global marketplace, our laws need to be adjusted for it.

[gunnysmith]

Sunset amendment passed.
No law shall retain effect for greater than two years from the date of passage.

That'll keep them busy with their pet projects until they are voted out of office.

[Mike OTDP]

I'll add one more...

CMP should be the only legal option to dispose of Federally owned firearms. At least those not NFA.

[Bonesinium]

Is anyone allowed to bring charges to a grand jury, or are just state prosecutors/district attorneys and the like able to?

[Warp]

Is anyone allowed to bring charges to a grand jury, or are just state prosecutors/district attorneys and the like able to?
Not just anybody can bring criminal charges. Only the government can do that, not individuals.

[Zeke/PA]

Here is my VERY staunch reply to this question.
As we speak, every criminal MISUSE of firearms is ALREADY covered by EXISTING Legislation.
My hope is that the Black Robed Buffoons who run our supposed Justice System get up off their butts and start, using the stuff that's on the books, putting these creep offenders in jail.
Without fail, the violators are repeat offenders but the SERIOUS gun crime offences are permitted to be Plea Barganed away.
In 2008, my last access to the goings on in Philadelphia there were 6500 UN-PROSECUITED Gun crimes on the books.
Is it any wonder that the inner city violence prospers?
As to the Blacked Robed Buffoons :
"All Rise to His Honor" !
I will NEVER ,EVER do this again, Court Room crap withstanding.
I'll risk a jail sentence.