I'm Demanding A Plan...

[CmdrSlander]

...but don't worry, it's not Michael Bloomberg's scheme to punish legal gun owners or the Brady's plot to end the Second Amendment.

-----------------------------------

Every time there is a mass shooting we lose a little bit our freedom that we'll never get back. They force us to go on the defensive and turn ever growing segments of the population against us. If the current status quot continues, wherein the only gun law reforms are feel good measures like AWBs, we will lose most of our rights within the coming generation.

I fear that we are about one Sandy Hook away from universal registration and mag bans, and two away from semi-automatic firearms bans and confiscation, and three away from mandatory inspections of gun owner's property and gun storage facilities. We need a plan that will meaningfully reduce mass shootings and gun violence in general if we want to keep our guns... and I mean all of our guns. I have developed a proposal the attacks the three reasons why we are losing our gun rights:

1) Crazy people with guns

2) Criminals with guns/access to guns

3) Unsafe schools and public areas

The plan is as follows:

1)

-Fund an independent board of medical professionals to create a list of prescription medications and mental conditions that should disqualify someone from owning a gun. Use the fact that Obamacare lets the government into health records to pour this information (a list of all the newly disqualified people) into NICS (turning a negative into a positive).

-Public schools that receive government money should be required to screen all students for violent mental problems as a condition of enrollment, with screenings increasing in high school.

-Make NICS accessible for free to private sellers via an automated phone system, the internet, and an App. Strongly encourage its use by all responsible private gun sellers. (Just as someone who does not keep their guns in a safe is looked down upon in the firearms community, someone who does not use a free check on the person they are selling to could be equally shamed).

2)

-End straw purchases; make reporting a lost or stolen firearm easy and free. If a lost or stolen firearm is found to be used in a crime within one year and you don't report it, you are guilty of a misdemeanor at first, with escalating penalties for every time this happens. Also, you become a prohibited person for three months, then six, and so on.

-Make "theft of a deadly weapon" a Federal crime and a felony.

-Deploy SWAT and other high impact interdiction teams against criminals known to have stolen firearms or straw purchased firearms. In doing so make an example of said criminals.

-Expand the Curio and Relic FFL to include all modern, non-NFA firearms and allow C&R holders to sell to each other across state lines and use the USPS to mail guns and ammunition. (This makes private sales less attractive, reducing the likelihood, however slim that criminals will use lawful private sales to buy guns for their nefarious purposes.)

-Simplify and digitize the process of a acquiring a C&R FFL.

-Allow 18 year old citizens to purchase handguns and "other firearms" from FFL dealers if they provide an adult character witness so they don't have to turn to private sales. The ultimate goal is to make private sales and the "gun show loophole" irrelevant by making other ways of lawfully purchasing firearms more attractive.

3)

-Encourage through monetary incentives the hiring of former law enforcement and military by school districts provided these professionals carry concealed while on the job.

-Allow CCW holders to carry guns on school property by amending the Gun Free Schools act and state CCW laws.

-Allow teachers, parents, etc. to carry concealed without a permit on school grounds with the permission of the school's administrator.

-Move to permitless or no-training-required carry in all 50 states in order to maximize the number of people concealing a firearm and thus increase the number of immediate responders to violent incidents.

R/S,

CmdrSlander

------------------

Thoughts?

 

[AlexanderA]

While I like your process of creative thinking, I don't believe that anything you suggest would prevent the next horrific incident. People just have to realize that we're never going to be perfectly safe. All such legislative proposals mainly are just to make us feel good -- until the next massacre.

 

[BBQJOE]

Too many more rules for me.

We will never be able to keep insane people from doing insane things.

 

[silicosys4]

I entirely disagree with almost each and every one of your new gun control measures.

1a. I strongly dislike a "panel" or "board" (totally unbiased and uninfluenced, of course....as they always are) not of my peers deciding whether I or anyone else is "fit" to exercise our rights. Fix the problem of mental health care availability before you shut the curtains and turn the lights out on an entire growing segment of our population....those with mental health issues.

1b. "require" is not a word that belongs in any realistic discussion about a public resource that ALL taxpayers fund regardless of the state of their children's mental health. Not to mention, you are exacerbating a situation by shunning them....your "violent kid" is CERTAINLY going to grow up a "violent adult" after being denied public schooling.

1c. "shaming" someone for not using a system that has NO evidence to support its effectiveness, and already has a lack of prosecutions of violators... is an inappropriate and unwelcome response

2a. How about we prosecute the criminals, and not blame other victims of said criminal for that criminals activity?

2b. Theft of a firearm is already a felony. Lets prosecute those, shall we? Theft of a "deadly weapon"...now you are being just as vague as your gun-control loving opposition

2c. Swat is already deployed in every situation where they are available and their use is needed. "making examples" is only going to make lawsuits that waste taxpayers money.

2d. please explain to me how a sale across state lines via usps is more secure than a face to face transaction. Not that I disagree, but you'll have to justify that one better.

2e. I completely agree; in fact, do away with those license requirements altogether.

2f. Do those 18 year olds require an adult character witness to stand beside them as they march into battle to defend our country as members of our armed forces? Many of them carry handguns to do so.

3a. I would rather the school districts hire TEACHERS to teach my children, who were trained to TEACH. I like the idea of having an armed police officer on school grounds, but come on, we don't need to replace our teachers with a paramilitary army in the classrooms to keep our children safe, and we should be selecting our teachers for their teaching skills, NOT for their gun-handling skills....might I suggest that gun-handling skills AND grade-school level teaching skills might not be found in very many people?

3b. completely agree.

3c. disagree in that if you are going to carry a gun on the job and you work primarily around children, you need to be trained in how to effectively use that gun and how to keep it out of the hands of children at all times. This should NOT be at the discretion of any "school administrator" since public schools are NOT private property and "school administrators" are NOT a person of authority.
Someone who knows nothing about guns is more likely to worsen a situation they are trying to effectively control, than do any good.

3d. I agree, in that people shouldn't be required to know how to use a gun if they want to own one,
but they damn well should have the common sense to want to know how.

 

[wooly bugger]

While I like your process of creative thinking, I don't believe that anything you suggest would prevent the next horrific incident. People just have to realize that we're never going to be perfectly safe. All such legislative proposals mainly are just to make us feel good -- until the next massacre.

The one that I've also considered is the universal screening. If linked to an escalation process, it could absolutely prevent the next shooting. It would also have to be coupled to increased finding for mental health facilities which right now are woefully inadequate.

 

[TCB in TN]

Thoughts?

1. Making a board is not going to keep anyone on the streets that is interested in harming others, from do so. Unless you are willing to incarcerate those who you think are a danger to society then you are not going to be able to protect society from them.

2. nics UBC etc are a great "idea" but......See #1 above.

2a. I don't want to see LE, SWAT, etc "make an example" of anyone. IMHO LE has become to militarized already. LE is there to arrest offenders, not make examples of them. A completely wrong headed idea all the way around. I am completely in favor of keeping violent offenders in prison longer, but it is not LE job to punish anyone.

3. What does a school's administration have to do with the exercise of ones 2A rights? The right to defend one's self should not be at the whim of a particular school administrator.

IMHO states should get out of the way of Law Abiding citizens who are willing and able to defend both themselves and their students.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

People have committed murder with stolen guns, borrowed guns, machetes, garden tools, and so on.

The best insurance against a massacre is an armed citizenry. We should have universal carry. There's more good guys than bad ones.

 

[Texan Scott]

More rules, more restrictions, more federal encroachment when the 2A was meant to be a clear RESTRICTION on federal authority over firearms.

NO. No more of the federal government's "help". They aren't solving problems with the existing laws they don't enforce; new laws and new invasions of law abiding citizens' privacy and new conditions laid upon free exercise of a constitutional right are NOT THE ANSWER.

 

[JFtheGR8]

Posts like this make me want to rant but it would just be preaching to the choir. I have written and will continue to write to my representatives about actually enforcing the current laws before making new ones.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

 

[El Mariachi]

My big 'solution'? All of us, and I mean firearm owners AND the non's alike, need to keep our eyes open a bit wider and clean out our ear canals so that we can hear better. Meaning we really need to be more aware, alert and/or cognizant of the future PND (Psycho Next Door). If you have kids like I do it's a whole lot easier to catch snippets of nuttery regarding an acquaintance of theirs, or someone who kinda hangs off to shadows, or even one of their good friends who's been acting out of character of late. This can be accomplished easily by either by over-hearing their friends conversing away, or when they mention a certain someone at school or whatever that's been giving out signals that his/her life is not going their way, and that they are troubled. Which oft times equals coming unglued. Of course the druggies and the kids/adults who always seem to be getting LEO'd in one way or another are much easier to spot and their internal time bomb may have already begun ticking. Basically what I'm trying to convey here is that a higher level of vigilance is necessary to help spot the next PND. As an example, here's a link to a news story about a very tragic event that in hind sight, I wish I would have/could have helped prevent, because when I met this kid who went to our Daughter's a few years ago (at a large bbq we held for a bunch of her new classmates & old friends at our house), something about Jonathan Scott Chacon just didn't seem right. And he eventually proved that my suspicions were not unwarranted. And it still pains our Daughter and our family to think what this PND did to her good friend and her mother. Trust me, it was beyond sickening.

To whit;



http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_20107029/slain-redondo-beach-mother-and-daughter-died-from

 

[c4v3man]

1) The board finds that a fascination or preoccupation with firearms is a sign of potentially violent behavior.

Game over.

 

[CmdrSlander]

I agree with everything being said in response to my post, more or less. My issue is this:

We know having lots of guns does in a society not lead directly crime/mass shootings (look at Switzerland) so why does America get hit with all this senseless violence while countries like the Czech Republic, Switzerland, New Zealand, etc. that also have few gun restrictions enjoy a relative lack of such incidents? It must be, in my opinion, the mental health system and the quality of the people who have access to guns. It clearly has nothing to do with the guns but that is what the Antis believe and they will use the actions of madmen to take our guns away.

How do we stop these madman before they commit mass violence? Really, we need to figure this out and soon.

 

[CmdrSlander]

1) The board finds that a fascination or preoccupation with firearms is a sign of potentially violent behavior.

Game over.

The board would be limited to recognized mental conditions per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and their decisions would be open to appeal and the actual list of disqualifying conditions would be subject to the approval of the Congress as part of the bill associated with these measures.

 

[c4v3man]

while countries like the Czech Republic, Switzerland, etc. that also have few gun restrictions enjoy a relative lack of such incidents

Switzerlands gun laws aren't really all that non-restrictive. They're not the worst, but they're not more lax than America obviously.

Banning mentally unstable individuals (which is ambiguous, and has no real meaning) from owning firearms will simply drive a portion of them underground, where they remain untreated and get worse. Heck, "treatment" aka pills may actually be responsible for some of these atrocities. Requiring evaluations and, naturally, treatment may cause more issues than it solves.

Bad men will do bad things. Deranged people will do deranged things. All that matters is how you will react when these things happen. Pointing to a gun free zone sign isn't my idea of defense (not that you're advocating this).

 

[silicosys4]

The board would be limited to recognized mental conditions per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and their decisions would be open to appeal and the actual list of disqualifying conditions would be subject to the approval of the Congress as part of the bill associated with these measures.

Think about this. We are locked in battle for our 2a rights....with the very same people you want to give a backdoor to qualify people as being unfit for their 2a rights.
Giving any small group of government officials the power to declare who is allowed this or that is just opening the door.

 

[CmdrSlander]

I entirely disagree with almost each and every one of your new gun control measures.

1a. I strongly dislike a "panel" or "board" (totally unbiased and uninfluenced, of course....as they always are) not of my peers deciding whether I or anyone else is "fit" to exercise our rights. Fix the problem of mental health care availability before you shut the curtains and turn the lights out on an entire growing segment of our population....those with mental health issues.

1b. "require" is not a word that belongs in any realistic discussion about a public resource that ALL taxpayers fund regardless of the state of their children's mental health. Not to mention, you are exacerbating a situation by shunning them....your "violent kid" is CERTAINLY going to grow up a "violent adult" after being denied public schooling.

1c. "shaming" someone for not using a system that has NO evidence to support its effectiveness, and already has a lack of prosecutions of violators... is an inappropriate and unwelcome response

2a. How about we prosecute the criminals, and not blame other victims of said criminal for that criminals activity?

2b. Theft of a firearm is already a felony. Lets prosecute those, shall we? Theft of a "deadly weapon"...now you are being just as vague as your gun-control loving opposition

2c. Swat is already deployed in every situation where they are available and their use is needed. "making examples" is only going to make lawsuits that waste taxpayers money.

2d. please explain to me how a sale across state lines via usps is more secure than a face to face transaction. Not that I disagree, but you'll have to justify that one better.

2e. I completely agree; in fact, do away with those license requirements altogether.

2f. Do those 18 year olds require an adult character witness to stand beside them as they march into battle to defend our country as members of our armed forces? Many of them carry handguns to do so.

3a. I would rather the school districts hire TEACHERS to teach my children, who were trained to TEACH. I like the idea of having an armed police officer on school grounds, but come on, we don't need to replace our teachers with a paramilitary army in the classrooms to keep our children safe, and we should be selecting our teachers for their teaching skills, NOT for their gun-handling skills....might I suggest that gun-handling skills AND grade-school level teaching skills might not be found in very many people?

3b. completely agree.

3c. disagree in that if you are going to carry a gun on the job and you work primarily around children, you need to be trained in how to effectively use that gun and how to keep it out of the hands of children at all times. This should NOT be at the discretion of any "school administrator" since public schools are NOT private property and "school administrators" are NOT a person of authority.
Someone who knows nothing about guns is more likely to worsen a situation they are trying to effectively control, than do any good.

3d. I agree, in that people shouldn't be required to know how to use a gun if they want to own one,
but they damn well should have the common sense to want to know how.

Addressing the bolded ones only and in order:

You wouldn't be denied public schooling, it would just go on your record and your parents would be informed. Schools make everyone take eye and hearing tests so they know all students can hear and see the material, why can't it also be made sure the kids aren't a mass killer in the making.

There is a legal definition of deadly weapon, or at least one in case law see "Assault with a deadly weapon"

Because everyone with an C&R FFL has been vetted by the ATF

No but we would never simply get the age reduced... too many doctors are willing to testify that 18 yr olds don't have full impulse control yet and too many 18 yr olds who prove them right.

Teaching skills would come first, of course, and also, I wasn't thinking teachers only, other positions like coach, custodian, lunch worker, and administrator come to mind. In fact and armed custodian would be pretty useful as no one notices them...

 

[jerkface11]

So you propose a different set of ineffective laws to counter the set of ineffective laws that have been suggested already? No thank you.

 

[CmdrSlander]

Switzerlands gun laws aren't really all that non-restrictive. They're not the worst, but they're not more lax than America obviously.

Banning mentally unstable individuals (which is ambiguous, and has no real meaning) from owning firearms will simply drive a portion of them underground, where they remain untreated and get worse. Heck, "treatment" aka pills may actually be responsible for some of these atrocities. Requiring evaluations and, naturally, treatment may cause more issues than it solves.

Bad men will do bad things. Deranged people will do deranged things. All that matters is how you will react when these things happen. Pointing to a gun free zone sign isn't my idea of defense (not that you're advocating this).

I know they will, buts its obviously possible to deal with them in some way before they commit violence and I fear, and yes it is a FEAR, that the actions of these deranged men who we seem to be failing to deal with will kill our second amendment rights.

 

[c4v3man]

I know they will, buts its obviously possible to deal with them in some way before they commit violence and I fear, and yes it is a FEAR, that the actions of these deranged men who we seem to be failing to deal with will kill our second amendment rights.

They already are killing our second amendment rights if your policies were put into place. So you're simply accelerating what you are trying to prevent.

Secondly, I wouldn't say that it's "obviously possible to deal with them in some way before they commit violence", or else such a solution would have presented itself already. I'm not saying it's not possible, but your proposals thus far are easily abused, and further erode our compromised 2nd amendment rights.

 

[Averageman]

What Medical Professional would risk litigation to permit you to own a firearm?
The simple answer is not one of them.
A Medical Board if allowed would exempt you from Firearms ownership because you took any medication that would currently warn you against operating heavy machinery.
Take an antihistimine? No gun for you Comrade!
42 Laws were broken at Newtown, What 43rd Law can you think of that would prohibit it from ever happening again,...Simply there is No Law that prohibits Monsters and the Insane from being either Monstrous or Insane.
Want some common sense added to the mix?
Everytime your local municipality asks for a bond issue for more Police or a Police substation raise a petition that the extra station be within 100 yards of a School Zone and an Officer be stationed at the school.
Petition your PTA to allow Armed Staff and Police in your Schools.
We dont need more laes, just common sense.

 

[silicosys4]

Addressing the bolded ones only and in order:

You wouldn't be denied public schooling, it would just go on your record and your parents would be informed. Schools make everyone take eye and hearing tests so they know all students can hear and see the material, why can't it also be made sure the kids aren't a mass killer in the making.

There is a legal definition of deadly weapon, or at least one in case law see "Assault with a deadly weapon"

Because everyone with an C&R FFL has been vetted by the ATF

No but we would never simply get the age reduced... too many doctors are willing to testify that 18 yr olds don't have full impulse control yet and too many 18 yr olds who prove them right.

Teaching skills would come first, of course, and also, I wasn't thinking teachers only, other positions like coach, custodian, lunch worker, and administrator come to mind. In fact and armed custodian would be pretty useful as no one notices them...

Behavior among peers is already noted in any school child behavioral report.
Your statement about the need to register "violence in children" is directly countered by your own statement about how people younger than 18 year old have poor "impulse control"....so I need to register my child as being a future mass shooter in the eyes of the state because they, like most other children, display poor "impulse control"? Truly "violent" children usually are NOT in school. They are expelled for being violent. They then fall through the cracks, end up in the street, and become those crazy, violent people you describe....Your desire to label would apply to and subsequently haunt MANY children who would then grow up and learn proper "impulse control".
I also distrust anyone who would assert that a child's behavior is indicative in any way, of their future choices in life as an adult.
You want a single child psychologist of dubious knowledge, bias, or techniques deciding your child's future in the eyes of the state?

The legal definition of "deadly weapon" is indeed vague.
look up the definition of a "bludgeoning object".
Yup, pretty much anything in your house could be considered a deadly weapon....and often is in court cases.

DEADLY WEAPON

A "deadly weapon" is defined by statute as any weapon, whether loaded or unloaded, from which a shot may be discharged, or a switchblade knife, gravity knife, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, or metal knuckles.

If the weapon is a firearm, it may be unloaded, but it must be in such condition that a shot may be discharged from it. Thus, if the weapon is loaded but out of working order, it is not a deadly weapon. If the weapon is unloaded but in working order, it is a deadly weapon.

Source: General Statutes § 53a-3 (6) (applies to Penal Code).

http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/glossary/deadlyweapon.htm

 

[c4v3man]

Thus, if the weapon is loaded but out of working order, it is not a deadly weapon.

And we deserve the laws we get. So buying a cheaper non-working but real gun from the back of some guys car entitles you to a lesser sentence when you hit the local smash and grab for some easy cash. Ludicrous...

 

[shafter]

The plan is as follows:

1)

-Fund an independent board of medical professionals to create a list of prescription medications and mental conditions that should disqualify someone from owning a gun. Use the fact that Obamacare lets the government into health records to pour this information (a list of all the newly disqualified people) into NICS (turning a negative into a positive). The only thing that should disqualify someone from owning a gun is being in prison. Our founding fathers didn't stipulate who could own, and who couldn't own guns. The reason we carry is to protect ourselves against the crazies (among other reasons). I sure don't want some panel somewhere determining my mental competence.

-Public schools that receive government money should be required to screen all students for violent mental problems as a condition of enrollment, with screenings increasing in high school. Public schools are already enough like prison. Maybe that's part of the problem anyway.

-Make NICS accessible for free to private sellers via an automated phone system, the internet, and an App. Strongly encourage its use by all responsible private gun sellers. (Just as someone who does not keep their guns in a safe is looked down upon in the firearms community, someone who does not use a free check on the person they are selling to could be equally shamed). I disagree. Why should be have to have a background check to exercise a constitutional right? The Founders would never have condoned this.

2)

-End straw purchases; make reporting a lost or stolen firearm easy and free. If a lost or stolen firearm is found to be used in a crime within one year and you don't report it, you are guilty of a misdemeanor at first, with escalating penalties for every time this happens. Also, you become a prohibited person for three months, then six, and so on.

-Make "theft of a deadly weapon" a Federal crime and a felony. Again I disagree. Murder should be a crime, robbery should be a crime, rape, battery etc. The firearm should have nothing whatsoever to do with it. What if I stole a pair of Nike sneakers and kicked someone to death with them?

The bottom line is that we don't need more gun laws. In fact we need far fewer. We need to fix society's problems. We need to solve the reason why people are comitting crimes. Not chase after an inanimate object.

 

[danez71]

People just have to realize that we're never going to be perfectly safe

Along that idea.....

Why is that the saying "Freedom isnt Free" is understood when said about sending our troops to anouther country but isnt recognized for the 2A?

 

[barnbwt]

Schools make everyone take eye and hearing tests so they know all students can hear and see the material, why can't it also be made sure the kids aren't a mass killer in the making.

You're joking right? Psychology can't accurately predict a kid is an anything in the making, let alone a killer, from a few cursory tests (or did your eye/ear exams have multi-hour followup appointments stretching into the weeks?)

Remember the 'ol aptitude tests and how appallingly terrible they were? There is no mental test that boils a person's being or intellect down into a single number like hearing/vision tests (even using an IQ to do so is an incorrect application of the test).

This whole notion of combating pre-crime is ridiculous. Any sort of time travel is logically ridiculous, and predicting the future is no less so. You can predict trends with statistics (somewhat, and only sometimes) but applying those ideas to individual's inalienable rights is heresy. All you can do, is respond efficiently to bad events happening, as fast and as assertively as possible, which is best done with arms well-distributed among the populace.

Devoting the nation's boundless energy towards creation and productive behavior, instead of directing it inward in an effort to out-think ourselves, would generate all the opportunity needed to get idle, restless youth off the streets and working for themselves. A well armed populace in which no one need fear being helpless in the face of aggression, and which is prepared and motivated to defend that which is precious will be safe from despair.

The bottom line is that we don't need more gun laws. In fact we need far fewer. We need to fix society's problems. We need to solve the reason why people are comitting crimes. Not chase after an inanimate object.

"We need to fix this" is a platitudinous request, and so is my observation. We have been so prosperous and peaceful (here in America, not globally, of course) for so long, that we have lost our perspective, and can no longer identify those things that got us up here. We're like a cat in a tree, that can't remember which branches it climbed, but only knows "I must get down somehow." We focus on small, symptomatic issues like gun violence, and attempt to address them individually as they appear, hoping to cobble together an impactful public policy. If we could only direct the boundless energy and intellect of our nation toward real innovation, industry, and creation, and away from our own navels, we would have all the opportunity we needed to employ the talents of the idle and restless and turn them from crime. Instead we are locked in a staring contest with our own reflection (statistics), and endlessly toil out-thinking the most cunning and irrational demons among us.

TCB