If you could change ONE thing about Gun Laws...

[Drgong]

What would it be?

Mine would be that Local and state governments cannot regulate firearms except for the locations of gun stores though zoning, and gun stores must be treated as a common retail establishment.

What is yours?

 

[ny32182]

It would be a toss up between many "single things" (which numerous individual laws may require changing to get accomplished)...

But I think my one thing would be that carry permits are either abolished (in favor of Vermont style everywhere) or that any state CCW permit was valid in the same way a DL is valid: Everywhere.

Close second may be that full auto was treated same as semiauto for legal purposes, though that wouldn't really have any practical application. And with ammo prices being what they are now, the fun factor may be limited as well.

 

[SsevenN]

But I think my one thing would be that carry permits are either abolished (in favor of Vermont style everywhere)

That's exactly what I would change.

 

[buzz_knox]

The one thing I would change about gun laws is their very existence.

 

[KiltedClaymore]

repeal 1938 gun act.

 

[matrem]

Repeal all of them.Crime is against the law.Any device used to enable it is a non issue,whether it's a car,a gun,or a brick.I'd be all for more severe penalties to the criminal though.

 

[Reddbecca]

If I could change one, and only one, thing about guns laws, I'd change the legal status of gun control to make it overwhelmingly illegal and subject to repeal.

 

[siglite]

Simple. Strike 18 USC Sec. 922

 

[RonE]

The one thing I would do would be to make all states the same as the most liberal state with reguard to CCW, open carry, waiting periods and gun transfers.

 

[glink]

Obeying the first gun law would take care of the rest.

See COTUS-2A

 

[MT GUNNY]

How about a law that forces Politicians to obey the law!!

IE Mayors of certain city's

 

[blkbrd666]

I would make any law governing firearms illegal.

 

[ProficientRifleman]

I would end the doctrine/concept/practice of prior restraint.

NEVER should there be ANY prior restraint on an existing constitutionally guaranteed right.

Sure, you have a right, just get this permission slip first, apply for this permit first, come into possession of this license first, let me check your background first, prove to me you're not a criminal, wife beater, dog raper, FIRST... and then WE will permit you to exercise your (chuckle, chuckle) right.

Folks you have a right to breathe. Do you suffer any prior restraint first?

You have a right to speak your mind. Do you have to get a signature from your CLEO and a permission slip and tax stamp first?

 

[pappy]

Obeying the first gun law would take care of the rest.

See COTUS-2A

+1 Works for me!!

 

[GRB]

The Right of The People to keep and bear arms is an absolute right of each and every individual citizen of the United States of America who has reached the age of 16 years, and is the right of all younger American citizens when properly supervised by a parent or guardian, so long as said citizen has not been convicted of a felony wherein the person convicted made use of force against another in the commission of said felony.

No law or regulation or other legislation or governmental edict, decree or order shall be constitutional that in any way infringes upon this right, amends this right, repeals this right, abridges this right, or restricts this right in any manner except regarding convicted felons as stated above.

 

[Crunker1337]

Only the federal government can create gun laws; in other words, all state and local gun laws are kaput.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Only the federal government can create gun laws; in other words, all state and local gun laws are kaput.

That seems somewhat opposite of the intent of the Constitution.

 

[junyo]

I would pass a law creating direct personal liability for unconstitutional restrictions and personal injury on legislators. If a gun law got passed that was later ruled unconstitutional, the taxpayers would be able to sue individual law makers who voted against the bill. If you were the victim of a crime, were able to prove to the 'reasonable man' standard that a weapon that you were prevented from having due to unconstitutional laws and/or onerous regulation would give you or your heirs basis to sue individual lawmakers to recover damages.

 

[crebralfix]

Rewrite the Second Amendment, since "shall not be infringed" is apparently meaningless:

The people have the right to keep arms of any sort* and to bear those arms in any manner they see fit.

No government, government entity or agent, law, policy, or contract, may restrict, tax, register, or interfere with this right, or any associated items in any way. Places to practice with arms are exempt from all regulation and taxes.

The people have the right to form militias for the protection of their country, state, county, community, and homes. The militias are the ultimate enforcers of the law, but power to enforce the law shall be delegated to the county sheriff**.

Only court houses and jails shall restrict the bearing of arms, and all shall provide a means to store the arms of visitors.

Defense of self and family is a right that shall not be interfered with. A person who engages in self-defense*** shall be immune from civil and criminal prosecution.

* I haven't decided what I think is acceptable. I just want to get it written.

**Still working this out, but the gist is that the militia ARE the cops. When they're not around, the sheriff does the work and can delegate authority. It could be "shared" with, but only at the will of the militia.

***I'm throwing around the words "lawful" and "legal" here.

I'm not sure on all the legal lingo, but good 'nuff. You get the drift.

 

[DRYHUMOR]

Uniformity across the nation.

Open or concealed carry, owners option.

No purchase or possesion for felons, mentally ill, or domestic abusers.

 

[K3]

The one thing I would change about gun laws is their very existence.

Sums it up for me.

 

[Old Grump]

All of them

Only restrictions would be court determined for people who are violent criminals and those legally determined to be mentally challenged, or ill who are a threat to themselves or others.

 

[dcal]

One thing? I would make some provision that any gun control law is an unacceptable restriction on a basic human right.







Oh wait, there already is a provision like that... Nevermind.

 

[G36-UK]

If I could change one thing, there would only be one law.

Since the words of the 2A are "Keep and Bear", here's my law:

Any weapon that can be carried, maintained, loaded and brought to bear by an individual soldier* can be possessed by any person who can pass a NICS check, regardless of weapon classification**. Any requirement for such weapons beyond a NICS background check*** is prohibited. Bans on all cosmetic and safety attachments**** are prohibited.

Anything larger comes under NFA background check and transfer (no CLEO sign-off required).

It'll never happen, but I think it's a little better than the current situation, no?

*As I recall, the smallest nuclear weapons needed either two people to carry it or maintain it (could be wrong here), so that should shut up the antis who go on about that.

**By "classification", I mean handgun, bolt-action, semi-auto, automatic, etc.

***Licensing, registration, etc.

****Silencer bans and AWBs, bye!

 

[230RN]

crunker1337 said,

Only the federal government can create gun laws; in other words, all state and local gun laws are kaput.

Crunker1337, you can only say that from the viewpoint of your own state.

And you, G36-UK, can only say that from the viewpoint of your own country.

No federal gun law is acceptable, no matter how good they look from New Jersey or the UK.

And I can't believe how many folks on this site have bought into the idea that NICS checks, etc, are acceptable.

You, sirs and mesdames, have been brainwashed.

There. I said it and I ain't takin' it back.