For the sake of argument; Good gun control laws.


August 16, 2004, 10:17 PM
Here's the situation;

You have been selected by a moderate, Southern Democratic senator, to write some sensible gun control legislation. This is compromise legislation, so "No gun control" bills will simply not do. What the senator is looking for is something that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals whilst simultaniously hurting legal gun owners as little as possible. He does believe in restrictions on some firearms, though he's more interested in banning guns most commonly used in crimes instead of 'assault weapons' which are commonly owned by collectors and perfectly legal 'plinkers' and he chose you to write a bill which is fair and educated. Your mission; write this gun control bill. You also have the power to, in this bill, remove all previous gun laws from the record and replace them. Again, please no "Everything is legal including nukes." type posts. Have fun!

If you enjoyed reading about "For the sake of argument; Good gun control laws." here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
August 16, 2004, 10:28 PM
though he's more interested in banning guns most commonly used in crimes

Easy, just ban all .22 rimfire firearms.


Standing Wolf
August 16, 2004, 10:31 PM
...moderate, Southern Democratic senator...


August 16, 2004, 10:39 PM
Aww comeon you guys. Why post if you aren't gonna play the game?

August 16, 2004, 11:04 PM
he's more interested in banning guns most commonly used in crimes
If I were crafting laws for your fellow I'd quit. Why? He is looking for a deux ex machina to fix a social problem which is caused by something totally different. He is looking to stop crime but he is ignoring the factors which cause crime. He needs instead to look at what factors have promoted the parasite class in America, have empowered thugs and shills; he needs to forget cosmetics.

I won't say that he's a moron, but he is bought and paid for by morons so there is no hope for him. I don't say this in any way to make you angry but (from my too long experiance in the behavioral management of the criminally insane underclass) what you ask is not going to do anything whatsoever to achieve your goals. :rolleyes:

August 16, 2004, 11:04 PM
Maybe he should ban baseball bats too.

August 16, 2004, 11:09 PM
How about "it shall be against the law for any person to murder, rape, assault, or otherwise harm another person?" Penalties for violating the above will be set by state legislatures.

Oh, wait. Never mind. We had that before gun control laws.

August 16, 2004, 11:12 PM
Ban any pistol with sights on it's side.

August 16, 2004, 11:15 PM
If you're not in jail/prison or a fugitive, you can own firearms.

editted to add:

"good gun control law" is itself an oxymoron.

August 16, 2004, 11:20 PM
Here's my law:

The Second Amendment, which provides that:

"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."

Is hereby clarified as follows:

1) It is indeed incorporated to the States as per the 14th amendment.
2) Arms means arms of any description without reference to their form, function, or utility or lack of utility in the organized or unorganized militia.
3) People means free people of any description, without reference to their membership of nonmembership in any organized militia.
4) "Shall not be infringed" means shall not be impeded, dimished, or obstructed in any way shape or form.
5) People convicted of violent felonies may have their gunrights suspended (for a fixed period of time?) by way of a specific unanimous finding by a jury of their peers, as a part of their sentence.
5a) The onus is upon the State to show that gunrights have been suspended, and a person shall be deemed fully vested in their gunrights unless their name appears upon a diligently and correctly maintained list, which is available for lookup to all citizens via phone call. ID may be required for acquisition or transfer of a firearm, and no records shall be kept of any transfer queries.
6) People having suffered such loss of gunrights, having served their sentence, may appear before a jury of their peers once a year to plea for the restoration of their gunrights.
7) People who are shown to have mental problems such that they present a danger to themselves or others shall be treated in a secure facility until such time that they do not present a danger to themselves or others, at which point further suspension of their gunrights would be pointless, now wouldn't it?

August 16, 2004, 11:39 PM
The signers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights would be wishing that your life was cut short if you did this. Who am I to argue against doing a self-destructive act?

Cuba is a leftist utopia with gun bans, and you can go there easily. The average salary is only $10 per month, but Castro is among the richest rulers in the world. I just don't understand why gun banners don't just flock to utopia land.

Please go...please, please, please.....

August 17, 2004, 07:13 AM
All gun crimes, regardless of gun type or caliber have one thing in common. Therefore that thing should be prevented or prohibited. For a gun, any gun to be used in a crime, it must be held by a criminal. Therefore the following criminal activities are prohibited.....

This would actually work if the law enforcement, education, and public service sectors were perfect, greatly reducing, but not actually eliminating, crime... but that's utopia

August 17, 2004, 07:31 AM
"Aww comeon you guys. Why post if you aren't gonna play the game?"

Possibly because even in our collective wildest imaginations there are no good gun control laws.


Treat every gun as if it is loaded.
Do not put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot.
Do not aim your firearm at anything you are not willing to destroy.
Be sure of your target AND what lies beyond it.

Now those are some good gun control laws.

August 17, 2004, 08:36 AM
Eddy Eagle or similar in all public school curriculum would be an o.k. gun control law.

Also, even though I lean heavily towards libertarian ideals, I don't object too strenuously to some of the early mandatory militia drill statutes, as long as they have liberal exemptions for consciencious objectors.

August 17, 2004, 08:46 AM
I'd modify geekwitha.45's suggestions as follows:

2) Arms means individual arms of any description, including rifles, handguns, and shotguns of any description as intended to be used and operated by a single individual.

This would allow all "sporting" arms as well as military-pattern arms as meant to be used by an individual soldier. So a .50 Barrett, 12 ga Streetsweeper, M16A2, HKMP5SD, Ithaca Auto-Burglar, etc., would all be legal. Things like Stinger missles, 81mm mortars, and WMD's would not be legal.

3) People means free people of any description who are adult citizens of the United States, without reference to their membership or nonmembership in any organized militia.

The rationale is that we don't want little kids having full access to firearms, and foreign nationals - including those who are here legally - are here at our pleasure, and should only enjoy rights granted at our pleasure.

4) "Shall not be infringed" means shall not be impeded, dimished, or obstructed in any way shape or form, nor shall these rights be subjected to fees, permits, licenses, registration, or review by any member of any government whatsoever, or those working on their behalf.

Brett Bellmore
August 17, 2004, 09:26 AM
How about strict (And exclusive) liability for anyone who's holding a gun at the time it's fired? No, "I didn't know it was loaded." No, "It just went off!". You were holding it, it was pointed at somebody, the legal presumption would be that you intended to shoot them. Rebutable, of course, for freak circumstances.

August 17, 2004, 09:36 AM
Ban Criminals.
People using guns illegally and violently are put away for a long, long time.

That should take care of it.

Art Eatman
August 17, 2004, 09:43 AM
Hokay. Take a different direction: The folks who wrote the BOR spoke of denial of 2A rights to "those of unsound mind"--the insane--and "those of bad repute"; those whom today we refer to as felons.

What format of law would you write to reduce the ability of those people to acquire firearms?


August 17, 2004, 10:14 AM
I've thought about this. We already have a ton of laws that have to be "fixed" and the only way to do this is through legislation. Basically my goal of this legislation would be to repeal all of the restrictions while leaving some of the infrastructure in place

The "oh ya there is a second amendment" Bill

1927 concealable weapons mail order ban. (Repeal)
1934 National Firearms Act (repeal)
1968 Federal Firearms Act (repeal)
1986 Armed Career Criminal Act (no change)
1986 Firearms Protection Act (repeal)
1986 Law enforcement Officers Protection Act (repeal)
1990 Crime Control Act 1990 (repeal)
1994 Brady Bill (repeal)
1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act other wise known as the "assault weapons" ban (repeal)
All executive orders concerning arms importation repealed.

In order to purchase firearms through the mail you would have to apply for an FFL. This would be "must issue" at only a cost to cover administration. Standard background check would apply.

To purchase a firearm you must be at least 18, a U.S. Citizen, not a fugitive, and not on probation. Checked via an instant check system.

August 17, 2004, 10:22 AM
"What the senator is looking for is something that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals whilst simultaniously hurting legal gun owners as little as possible."

Since the senator seems to be a real simpleton, how about a law like this?: "If you are a criminal, you can't own a gun." Oops, we already have plenty of laws like that.


August 17, 2004, 01:15 PM
Okay, here are a few:

- If a person is convicted of the commission of a violent crime with a gun in his possession, the minimum sentence is 5 years without parole on top of the sentence for the felony he was arrested for.

-Violent crimes committed with a firearm (any deadly weapon as far as I'm concerned) carry a minimum sentence of 25 years without parole. This is different from the one above in that the firearms was actually USED (brandished, fired, etc) in the commission of the crime.

-Murder or attempted murder with a firearm (again, any deadly weapon is fine by me) will get the perpetrator life in prison or the death penalty.

-Those people who are out on parole, if found in posession of a firearm will serve out the remainder of their sentence plus five years in prison without parole.

Sam Adams
August 17, 2004, 01:39 PM
If I could resist calling the Senator a blithering idiot, I'd suggest the following:

What Geek said, as modified by what HankB said, added to which would be a provision that in addition to no fees, etc., there could be no taxes of any kind (including sales taxes) applied to the purchase of guns, gun accessories of any type or ammunition (I would exempt holsters, but not general clothing).

As for laws to be repealed, I would go with Durus' list. The '86 Act could go in its entirety when the '68 GCA was repealed, as the beneficial provisions were only intended to rectify the GCA's more onerous provisions (and the associated regs and anti-gun interpretations thereof by the BATF).

I'd also put in protections against infringements of the 2nd Amendment: any official on any level of government, whether elected, appointed or hired via the civil service, who proposed or enforced any legislation or regulation designed to infringe upon the RKBA (specifically including ANY type of registration, including the backing up of lists of gun owners) could be charged with a felony upon the presentation of a petition signed by 100 citizens to the local federal attorney. Frivolous petitions would result in some kind of penalty to those who circulated them (and the petition would have to name such person or people).

I'd do something further, however. I'd pass a new Militia Act. I'd define the militia as the whole of the able-bodied population of citizens from age 16 and up (I could compromise to 17 or 18, but that's it), except for felons actually serving time and those on probation for violent felonies, as well as those involuntarily committed to time in some mental institution. Citizens between 18 and 50 would be forced to participate in 2 weeks of training per year, with appropriate protections from job loss, etc., would be issued FULL AUTO versions of whatever rifle the military used as current equipment for the infantry, and would further have at least 100 rounds of ammo at home in a gov't-provided container. Citizens would be required to meet certain marksmanship standards, depending upon age, and appropriate legislation would be drawn up to encourage the construction of hundreds or thousands of new ranges throughout the country. I'd set up multiple state, regional and national shooting championships, with substantial prize money involved. Retiring members of the active militia would be GIVEN their service arms, and any member of the militia would be able to buy any firearm that they wanted to buy (of course, it would be superfluous to do this, given the repeal of most/all federal controls and the requirement that states and localities do the same, but another piece of protection couldn't hurt.In short, I'd adopt the Swiss model.

If the good Senator objected, I'd point out that an armed society is a polite society, and that the crime rate in Switzerland is extremely low. We could do far worse than to emulate them.

August 17, 2004, 01:44 PM
Hokay. Take a different direction: The folks who wrote the BOR spoke of denial of 2A rights to "those of unsound mind"--the insane--and "those of bad repute"; those whom today we refer to as felons.

What format of law would you write to reduce the ability of those people to acquire firearms?

First we need to define "those of bad repute"/felons as narrowly as possible.

Then we need to realize that the incarcerated and the dead are effectively prohibited from acquiring firearms without the faintest whiff of inconvenience to the un-incarcerated and aboveground. ;)

August 17, 2004, 01:48 PM
...moderate, Southern Democratic senator...


Sam Nunn. Zell Miller. Larry McDonald. (okay, the latter was neither a senator, nor moderate, but he was a Southern Democrat...)

R.H. Lee
August 17, 2004, 02:13 PM
OK. One component of comprehensive "firearms legislation" has to be education-"No child left behind". Beginning in elementary school, and continuing through high school graduation, all children will be taught firearms safety, nomenclature, and correct defensive use. In order to obtain a high school diploma, each student will have to pass some reasonable course of fire and qualify with a handgun and longarm. Also along the way (probably in high school) students will see videos of gunshot wounds in emergency and autopsy rooms, so they can appreciate the effects of firearms usage.

August 18, 2004, 02:51 AM
Here's a few:

1. A civilian ban on undetectable, all-plastic guns.

2. A total ban on Depleted Uranium bullets.

3. No more liquid Teflon dipped handgun bullets that go through body armor like it wasn't there.

4. Using bullets made of ice that melt before being examined will be a separate felony.

And so on. Let the guy try to ban every urban legend-after all, it isn't about "doing something" about crime.

It's about looking like you're "doing something" about crime.


August 18, 2004, 04:53 PM
The only good laws concerning guns are those that increase penalties and have mandatory time (no parole/probation) for repeat offenders.

I belive the NFA laws concerning illegally converting a full auto or using one in a crime include mandatory federal time. When one considers how easy many firearms are to convert to full auto, yet this is rarely done so, at least by those who commit crimes with firearms, there must be a reason.

IMHO, the reason we don't see illegally converted full autos used in many crimes is because of the potential for additional prison time. Why convert a firearm to full auto to rob a gas station if a non-FA firearme will do?

If this is the reason, then here is my "sensible" gun law:

When a convicted felon commits a crime with a firearm, he will do an additional year of time for every round of ammunition he could load into that firearm, to include speedloaders and magazines.

So a criminal using a firearm and has two 30 round mags on him, would do 61 additional years. Note that he would not have to have the ammo on him, the "potential" load is what determines the punishment.

I think we would see one shot zip guns becoming even more popular with criminals.

The "convicted felon" requirement is intended to purposely target repeat offenders, which really are our big crime problem, and it protects your average Joe from getting undue punishment during a domestic dispute or an odd traffic incident where he happened to have a gun in the car.

August 18, 2004, 09:09 PM
I would simply make the point that restrictions on firearms ownership have already reached the point of ridiculousness. We have no further room to negotiate. Our backs are to the wall. It isn't going to change anything anyway.

Perhaps I should have just kept clicking and said nothing but it's long past the time where negotiation with the Democrate gungrabbers is an option. It only encourages them to want more restrictions and besides that, I have nothing left to give........My back is to the sea!


August 19, 2004, 03:17 PM
"those of bad repute" I don't think a 21st century American wants to go there. Reading contemporary documents that list would include beggers, vagabonds, the parasite class in general.

Art Eatman
August 19, 2004, 09:39 PM
M&M, the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers were written in language like that. In the context of that particular discussion, I cannot help but read it as meaning those whom today we would call "felons".

Odds are, though, at the time of that writing, it probably included those known for violence in the local tavern. :)

At any rate, the reason I've brought that up from time to time in these discussions about the 2nd A is that some folks here don't realize that those who wrote it and the other parts of the BOR did not see these rights as having no limits.


August 19, 2004, 11:18 PM
Thanks for the reply, Art. I have the feeling you are right about the tavern issue. Considering that the entire US had less people than Georgia has now, it would have been a lot easier for the high sheriff to know everybody in the county.

But back to the original post. I have a serious question here. This is compromise legislation

Why do compromises always have to be compromises to reduce MY (speaking metaphorically as a common citizen) rights? The lefties always want steal a dollar more in taxes but will settle for fifty cents, to build 100 low income apartments next door but will settle for fifty, to condemn ten acres of my land as wetland but will settle for 8 if I agree to file a permit to fill, to give me ten years in jail for picking up a hawk feather off the side of the road but will settle for five, to limit my pistol magazines to five shots but will settle for ten.

I want things to go in the other direction and to start having compromises in terms how much Federal power and 'taking' ability we're going to perminently removed each year. To me that seems most reasonable and moderate. Maybe start with something innocuous like the toilet, feather and fill dirt police and work up to bigger stuff.

If you enjoyed reading about "For the sake of argument; Good gun control laws." here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!