What law(s) would gun owners like to see in place?

[mikemyers]

Something I've been wondering about for a while.

The average person (not very well informed) probably thinks that "the government" is trying to regulate and control guns, while the NRA and others say that they have the right to own and use guns as they wish. The more the average person reads, the more they probably understand each side of this issue.

Just wondering - has anyone ever come up with a list of the laws that gun owners would like to have in place? (...and an explanation of how they're different from what we have now?)

To exaggerate quite a bit.... do we (the pro-gun side) want to see every adult walking around with a firearm & holster being just a normal part of what they wear each day?

.....do we (the pro-gun side) want to allow people to be walking around with any kind of weapon, including automatic machine guns... or maybe a BAR?



There is lots of stuff written about what we specifically don't want, and/or what we feel is (un)constitutional, but I don't remember seeing a writeup of what we DO want.

Maybe I should ask this a little differently - I read all the time about proposed laws and regulations that we feel go too far. How would WE write the appropriate laws and regulations, to create the type of world we'd like to live in?

 

[Snowbandit]

There is only one gun law needed in the US. It should go something like, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". And, lest there be confusion, this law gives no rights to anyone. It is a directive to government that any laws they should attempt to pass are illegal. Reasonable firearm laws? Thanks, we already have one and one is all we need.

 

[Telekinesis]

I'm going to have to agree with Snowbandit. Nothing more than the second amendment. Everything else just restricts me without affecting a criminal who, by definition, doesn't care about the laws in the first place.

 

[mikemyers]

(just a quick note - I was hoping to find something reasonable about what "we" want. By saying there should be NO restrictions, that means we're not against the general public walking around with any kind of machine gun they feel like carrying, or building up a stockpile of whatever kind of ammunition they prefer (bullets, C4, mortars), wherever they happen to live or work. What I'm asking, is if WE draw the line between what's permissible, where would we draw the line?)

We should also be realistic in what we want - with no restrictions whatever, would anyone in their right mind want to live in an apartment with bomb making equipment and supplies in the adjoining apartment(s)?

If the answer is NO laws whatever, so be it.

(Personally, I feel that "NO laws" on our side is about as realistic as the other side saying "NO guns", and we need to find a reasonable place to draw the line where all of us can accept it, but that's just me.)

 

[General Geoff]

(just a quick note - I was hoping to find something reasonable about what "we" want. By saying there should be NO restrictions, that means we're not against the general public walking around with any kind of machine gun they feel like carrying, or building up a stockpile of whatever kind of ammunition they prefer (bullets, C4, mortars), wherever they happen to live or work. What I'm asking, is if WE draw the line between what's permissible, where would we draw the line?)

I think unrestricted machine guns and so-called "destructive devices" is perfectly reasonable. Up until the 1968 GCA, you could mail order a 20mm semiautomatic shoulder-fired cannon with no background check, ID or even age requirement. It wasn't an issue. Wouldn't be today, either.

 

[stillkickin]

you are so right.

 

[tunnug]

To the OP, what you write is exactly what the "no guns crowd" think, the "will you let just anyone" argument.

That argument makes it look like all kinds of "crazy gun nuts" will automatically pick up the largest, most destructive, weapons or ordinance ever conceived and walk around looking for someone to use it on, and where exactly can I find C4, haven't seen any at the local gunshows.

I live in AZ where anyone can walk around with a gun on their hip (if they choose to) and the only people that will stare are the transplants/visitors from restrictive states, I have lived here most of my life and I have never seen more than a handfull actually carrying that way, so even if you let people carry anywhere most won't (imagine that).

Most everyone in the know of laws and human behavior will tell you that laws are only there for peoples sense of well being, those who are intent on getting their money/sense of power or what have you by taking it by force from people couldn't care less what the laws are.

The average person (not very well informed) probably thinks that "the government" is trying to regulate and control guns (QUOTE)
Wow! does that mean that you are well informed and "the Gov." is not trying to regulate and control guns..........Let's see..

Gun Control Act of '68.....
Clinton's evil gun and hi-capacity ban of the 80's
there are others that have been defeated before they got anywhere, right now we are fighting one that restricts any type of shooting in land management areas (where most hunting goes on).

 

[Telekinesis]

By saying there should be NO restrictions, that means we're not against the general public walking around with any kind of machine gun they feel like carrying, or building up a stockpile of whatever kind of ammunition they prefer (bullets, C4, mortars), wherever they happen to live or work

Yes, we are well aware of the fact that no restrictions would allow anyone to possess nearly any type of weapon (but that includes me and you too. Our only restrictions are those imposed by our pocketbooks).

In many states (or at least my own) it is perfectly legal to walk around with a loaded long gun pretty much wherever you like. In rural areas, you probably wont even get a second look. Now what would be the difference between that rifle and a machine gun? A different trigger group. That's it. And I assume you are aware that one "bulk" box of .22 could be considered by some as an ammunition stockpile, correct? Why on earth would you need 2,000 rounds of ammo for ONE gun???

Plus, with the ease of getting a shall issue carry permit these days, nearly everyone is able to carry a pistol, yet how many actually do? Do you really think that they'd just decide to take out their rifle for an evening stroll? Or go to a high school football game carrying their mortar tube?

We should also be realistic in what we want - with no restrictions whatever, would anyone in their right mind want to live in an apartment with bomb making equipment and supplies in the adjoining apartment(s)?

Do you (or probably your wife) have hair spray? how about a 5 gallon gas tank for the lawn mower in the garage? Spray paint? Some random rust and an Etch-A-Sketch (mix your own thermite)? Styrofoam and acetone (napalm)? Or even Ammonia and Bleach? There are potential explosives and chemical agents nearly everywhere you go. Hell, I had a friend in high school who made his own batches of chloroform (for the fun of it, he was really into chemistry. Its not like he was using it on girls or anything) and the hardest part about manufacturing it was finding a syringe to extract it from the solution. If someone really wanted to make an explosive, they are only a 5 minute internet search and an afternoon of playing around from making a fairly capable explosive.

(Personally, I feel that "NO laws" on our side is about as realistic as the other side saying "NO guns", and we need to find a reasonable place to draw the line where all of us can accept it, but that's just me.)

That's one of the problems. We've had gun laws for so long that people are starting to become complacent that "oh, its ok. Its always been that way" and that we need to "compromise" with these people. For over a hundred years (well into the era of fully automatic weapons) this country was just fine without any federal regulation. It's only recently that we have decided that no, we really don't need all that freedom after all .

Did you know that the fuse for smoke grenades has recently been classified as a low explosive by the ATF? Now instead of ordering a smoke grenade off the internet, you have to be federally licensed to possess explosives (any and all of them) and must store the smoke grenades in an approved explosives magazine. You must also notify your local fire department and police (both verbally and in writing) within 48 hours of receiving your first explosive ordinance. All of this for a smoke grenade! What's someone gonna do? choke on it? There is no logic in any of these laws!

 

[jimmyraythomason]

There is only one gun law needed in the US. It should go something like, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". And, lest there be confusion, this law gives no rights to anyone. It is a directive to government that any laws they should attempt to pass are illegal. Reasonable firearm laws? Thanks, we already have one and one is all we need.

There you go. Very reasonable to me.

 

[Art Eatman]

The purpose of gun control laws is to reduce violent crime involving firearms. The factual history is that none of the laws yet passed have accomplished this.

In the absence of any laws affecting the ownership of firearms, it should be expected that the rate of violent crimes via misuse of firearms would be unchanged.

A possible exception to this thesis would involve the present structure as to possession by felons, where the loss of 2A rights is involved.

 

[Sam1911]

If the answer is NO laws whatever, so be it.

Oh, thank heavens! I was worried for a minute that that one was off the table.

 

[mortablunt]

Gun laws I want:

* A reopening of the MG registry
* End of the destructive device category
* A simplified FFL system.
* Universal concealed carry permit (shall-issue)
* A ban on further assault weapons legislation
* An accelerated approval time for all forms sent to the ATF.
* A ban on mandated waiting periods.
* An end to requiring an FFL holder to do firearms transfers.
* Universal open carry without a permit.
* Universal enhanced Castle Doctrine.
* End of Duty to Retreat.
* Legalize universal campus carry.
* Lower handgun buying age to 18.
* Subjecting Police and Military to any new restrictions that civilians are subject to.
* A loosening of the prohibited persons list.
* Allowing for a citizen to buy a firearm in any state regardless of residence.
* Removal of the ban on the fictitious cop-killer bullets.
* Abolition of the sporting purposes clause.
* Prohibition of 50 cal rifle ban.
* Allowing for the importation of foreign arms regardless of design, origin, or purpose.

 

[sawdeanz]

I tend to agree with the others regarding firearm restriction laws, just don't have any.

Perhaps what would be the better alternative was to just legislate laws involving crimes with firearms, and in reality they already have all of those in place. You've got 10-20-life, etc. You can have as much c-4 as you want but have a hefty punishment for its misuse.

 

[SN13]

No gun laws.

If a person is too dangerous to be allowed to own a gun, then why is he allowed to live next to me?

Yes, I would love to see people walking around with a BAR.... what are they? 20lbs loaded? HAHAHAA have fun!

Honestly, I think the current registration laws for Machine Guns are unconstitutional as they prevent anyone who wasn't of legal age to own or possess a Machine Gun from buying and registering their own. Imagine a law that said "Only those people registered to vote by Nov 01, 2011 will ever be allowed to vote. No new voter registration cards will be issued" and then, when grandpappy dies, you can sell his voter card for $5000 because no new ones are issued? Seem's F'D up.

 

[Owen Sparks]

The answer is not more laws.

The question should be: What laws would you like to see abolished?

 

[beatledog7]

If we went back to un-infringed gun rights, we would NOT have people strolling around town with bazookas.

Consider: If I want to be mobile, I currently have the right to buy a bicycle or a Ferrari or, for that matter, a 10-ton dump truck. But I don't own a dump truck because:

1) I cannot afford to buy one
2) I could not afford to fuel one
3) I have no place to put one
4) A dump truck doesn't suit my transportation needs
5) My local dealer doesn't have one in stock
6) Shipping one from a dealer who does have one is expensive
7) My family doesn't support having a dump truck parked in the front yard
8) Even though driving one for a few minutes might be fun, I don't really want a 10-ton dump truck

Similar issues would serve to limit ownership of all the artillery pieces that anti-gunners fear. And, like any other illegal thing, criminals who really want one will find a way to get one notwithstanding laws to the contrary.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I'd recommend the Second Amendment; most unfortunately, however, it's never been tried, so there's no telling how effective it might be. About all we know is nothing else that's ever been tried has worked.

 

[tyeo098]

10 ton dump truck metaphor = beautiful

 

[bearcreek]

This thread makes me feel all warm inside. There are good, logical people left in this country after all. I agree with the majority here so far. 2A is the only gun law we need.

 

[mikemyers]

I guess I asked the wrong question.

Suppose the question instead was something along the lines of what gun laws would we propose that might be expected to be accepted by a majority of the country. If both sides compromise, is there something in the middle that everyone can accept.

(Yeah, a bazooka or BAR is unlikely to be used by anyone, as suggested up above, so why not move those kinds of weapons into the "banned" group? As to bomb making equipment in one's apartment, if I knew the people living next to me were busy making bombs, I'd be moving. The odds in favor of an explosion go too far in the wrong direction.

Back on topic, to be blunt, why don't we, and/or the NRA, propose gun laws that have a reasonable chance of being accepted? The "general population" has as much a right to feel safe, as we do, even though we each see a different way to achieve "safe". Even though we know better than those who have been taught to distrust guns, can't we propose something that we can all live with?)

 

[Owen Sparks]

The "general population" is clueless about firearms. They only know what they see on TV and in the movies. This is the problem with democracy, 51% of your ill informed neighbors can cancel out your well educated vote and as a result, laws are set to the mentality of the least common denominator of voter.

 

[RBH44]

"There is lots of stuff written about what we specifically don't want, and/or what we feel is (un)constitutional, but I don't remember seeing a writeup of what we DO want"

I think you were just politely told by most if not all of the above responses what WE DO WANT. If you insist on asking the same question over and over just in different ways thats gonna change real quick! Oh and see my signature phrase below.

 

[ArmedLiberal]

Mr. Myers I think your question has been well answered by previous posts. Perhaps you find these answers hard to believe; outside of your experience and knowledge. You seem incredulous that reasonable, thinking, educated people could hold these beliefs.

Please go back and read all of the previous posts with a new mind. Be open to the possibility that they represent sweet reason and the way that decisions will be made in times to come. Just try it out for a minute. You can go back to your previous assumptions when you are done if you prefer.

There is no moral difference between banning bazookas and BARs and semi-auto rifles designed with a military appearance. 2nd Amendment Patriots see no reason to compromise with those who are frightened by guns and have no knowledge or experience of guns. The "General Population" can learn to feel safe by educating themselves about firearms safety and the responsible use of firearms. There is no need to give up essential American liberties to make the ignorant feel safer.

The Right to Self Defense cannot be sanely doubted. Firearms allow we humans to rise above rule and domination by the strongest. No longer need we fear the fists, swords or clubs of the fearsomely strong criminal. Samuel Colt has made us all equal. Firearms are essential to self defense in the modern world.

I will concede the possible usefulness of regulations regarding the storage of large amounts of explosives, rockets and artillery ammunition in populated areas. As far as "Bomb Making Equipment," isn't that just a well equipped garage with a few machine tools?

The deepest and most original purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to provide the people with the means to resist Tyranny with violence if necessary. To me this clearly implies military weapons of every sort that are found on the modern battlefield.

It seems to me that your questions bear the assumption that gun laws should be adjusted to please those who are fearful and ignorant of guns. The real world is not always comfortable and wise people adjust themselves to reality rather than believing that the world ought to accommodate their preferences.

In short, Get Used To It.

 

[N003k]

OP...just because something is uncommon or unlikely to be used by many, doesn't mean it should be illegal...

That'd be like banning high performance cars on public roads. Are they capable of high speeds? Yes. Can they cause damage if used incorrectly? Yes.

Same as a full auto. They CAN shoot faster, and if used (Really in this case intentionally most likely) incorrectly, they can cause damage. But that doesn't mean they should be banned any more than a car that is CAPABLE of doing 180+MPH.

You've asked your question, and honestly gotten your answer. Most of us feel that we shouldn't compromise our right to keep and bear arms just because a certain type of gun makes someone uncomfortable, because when it comes down to it, that's all it is. I have 2 pounds of powder behind me, and about 900 primers. If I INTENDED to make that into a bomb (rather than a ton of .223) it could be quite a boom, however it's harmless unless I do something really stupid with it, should my neighbors be uncomfortable living next to me because I reload? Should they be uncomfortable because I have 30 guns throughout the house? If I got an MG, does that make me more dangerous? A bazooka? A towed artillery piece?

Its the person using the tool that causes the harm, not the tool. Why should responsibie people be prohibited from having a tool, just because someone might do something stupid with it?

 

[1stmarine]

mortablunt,
I applaud you for post #12.

I would also add laws to prevent other frequent violations:

The Equal Justice Foundation believes:
• Citizens should not be torn from their homes and children in the middle of the night based on nothing more than hearsay.
• Men and women should not be presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence.
• A secret tribunal should not have the power to force a man from his home without notice or hearing.
• Police should not have the right to enter and search a citizen's home without a warrant.
• Citizens should not be imprisoned based only on hearsay.
• Citizens should not be more afraid of the police than they are of criminals.
• A legal system that tolerates perjury and the subornation of perjury can not produce justice.
• Men should not be censured by public officials for crimes they have not committed.
• Men and women should not be made to work as indentured servants or held in thrall to others for acts they have not committed.