Proper Gun Control Laws (not exhaustive, a work in progress)
1. Licensing of all gun owners which would include a penal background check, a mental health background check, an eye exam, a written and practical test and approval by the local authorities (may-issue licensing).
2. Registration of all newly bought firearms which would need to be renewed after three months and yearly thereafter by presenting the paperwork and the weapon to the police.
3. Background checks on all purchases including private ones. This can be done at the local FFL dealer for a nominal fee.
4. Three day waiting period for all first purchases.
5. "May Issue" policy for concealed carry permits managed federally - same rules in every state.
6. Assault Weapons Ban using the California model which would include restrictions on extended magazines.
2. Registration of all newly bought firearms which would need to be renewed after three months and yearly thereafter by presenting the paperwork and the weapon to the police.
3. Background checks on all purchases including private ones. This can be done at the local FFL dealer for a nominal fee.
4. Three day waiting period for all first purchases.
5. "May Issue" policy for concealed carry permits managed federally - same rules in every state.
6. Assault Weapons Ban using the California model which would include restrictions on extended magazines.
7. Safe Storage of Firearms when not in use - guns must be kept in a gun safe.
8. All negligent discharges should be considered criminal.
Why is an assault weapon ban, which you have admitted is problematic and nonsensical in its definitions, part of your wish list?
ReplyDeleteIt's got problems, yes, but I can't quite bring myself to eliminate it from the list.
Delete"It's got problems," you admit. Tell me, can you identify a single redeeming feature of such laws?
DeleteDo you even notice your slowly (or perhaps not so slowly) intensifying extremism? You once were critical of an "assault weapons ban," and now you "can't quite bring yourself to eliminate it from" your list of desired atrocities. You once thought "silencer restrictions [were] pretty foolish"--now, some idiot constructs a monument to his own idiocy, and you're well on your way to agreeing with that. Didn't you at one time not see any point in banning .50 caliber rifles? Now you're enthusiastically on board.
Give yourself enough time, Mikeb, and you'll be able to justify banning squirt guns.
Can we at least whittle away another stupid feature ban from the "what makes an 'assault weapon'" list? Surely you've dropped bayonet lugs as a deadly feature that needs banned, but how about flash suppressors? You're ok with sound suppressors, and since sound suppressors also suppress flash, it would be mighty silly to make it a felony to equip your semi-auto rifle with an attachment that only suppresses flash. Don't you think?
DeleteKurt, your description of my supposed "intensifying extremism" is typically mendacious of you. With the AWB there's been no transition at all. I've always admitted there are problems, especially in defining exactly what an assault weapon is. About silencers, I jokingly said I have to wonder about abandoning my position on them, which you take for evidence of a transition towards banning them. That's pretty weak. And about the .50 caliber rifles you said, "Didn't you at one time not see any point in banning .50 caliber rifles?" Now, that's an example of the way you use a question to make a statement, which you followed with "Now you're enthusiastically on board." I don't recall "one time not see[ing] any point in banning .50 caliber rifles." Now, run along and frantically search the archives for some obscure statement I might have made that you can use for a big gotcha.
DeleteYou know what I think, TS. I'm tired of your pointing out all the problems with the AWB. You win, man. You win that discussion. You can stop now.
DeleteAbout silencers, I jokingly said I have to wonder about abandoning my position on them, which you take for evidence of a transition towards banning them. That's pretty weak. And about the .50 caliber rifles you said, "Didn't you at one time not see any point in banning .50 caliber rifles?" Now, that's an example of the way you use a question to make a statement, which you followed with "Now you're enthusiastically on board."
DeleteAh--I get it--when you say, "I'm now wondering if I have to abandon one of the only exceptions I've had about gun control laws I support," that means you're not shifting your position on suppressors. When I say, "Didn't you at one time not see any point in banning .50 caliber rifles?" I mean, "You at one time did not see any point in banning .50 caliber rifles."
Am I starting to get the rules now--words, whether yours or mine, mean what you say they do, because dictionaries have a pro-gun bias, or something? And, apparently, I'm not allowed to ask questions.
Unfrickingbelievable.
Does that mean he wins and you'll remove it from the list and stop advocating for it, or you just want him to shut up and stop saying what a dumb idea AWB's are?
DeleteAs for the comment you made to Kurt, you were not admitting any problems with the AWB when you were pushing it after Sandy Hook.
Ok. I win. But what does that mean? Are you still keeping your position?
DeleteLook, if you still want to ban AR-15s and AK-47s just change #6 to be a ban on all semi-automatic functioning guns. That’s the only way to get them without “loopholes” anyway. IMAG, MDA, and the Brady Campaign can’t come out and say this because it’s too extreme a position. But that’s never stopped you. You’re already calling for disarming half the gun owners, so that’s not much different than saying you want to ban half the guns in existence too.
Or don’t change anything. Take the position that even when the reasoning is sound you won’t change your mind because you cannot be reasoned with.
So despite claiming ambivalence for banning so-called "assault weapons," you still just gotta have it on your wishlist, and just happen to choose California's version--the most restrictive in the country (at least until the spasm of gun ban frenzy on the East coast after Sandy Hook).
DeleteA little history. The expired federal AWB banned semi-automatic, detachable magazine-fed rifles, if they also had two or more "military features," defined as folding or collapsible stocks, pistol grips, barrel shrouds, flash hiders, bayonet mounts, and grenade adapters.
As manufacturers adjusted their designs to comply with the law, gun ban zealots like the Violence Policy Center condemned that compliance as "skirting the law" (sound familiar--like someone's definition of a "sneaky hidden criminal"?).
Meanwhile, when decent people pointed out that the evil "military features" were merely ergonomic refinements, in no way changing the basic function of the gun, the anti-gun groups claimed that was wrong, they only wanted to ban the "extra-deadly" guns with "military" features, not hunting rifles. From the VPC again:
Legislators and members of the press have proposed placing increased restrictions on all semi-auto firearms, which would include some hunting rifles. Whether these proposals are merely the result of ignorance of the wide variety of firearms that are semi-automatic, or misguided efforts in the face of definitional problems, they only lend credence to the gun lobby's argument that restrictions on assault weapons are merely the first step toward banning all semi-automatic guns.
The Brady Bunch said much the same thing, but also accused the NRA of lying:
Assault weapons have distinct features that separate them from sporting firearms. While semiautomatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, the military features of semiautomatic assault weapons are designed to enhance their capacity to shoot multiple human targets very rapidly.
. . .
This contradicts the National Rifle Association’s (“NRA”) assertion that there are only “cosmetic” differences between the guns affected by the assault weapon ban and other firearms.
Now that even one "military" feature had been deemed too many, we were told we needed a law that banned semi-auto, detachable mag-fed rifles with any such features.
In 2000, California obliged the gun ban zealots, implementing the "one feature test" for defining "assault weapons."
Then last year, that was too lax for the gun ban jihadists. The California legislature passed a bill to ban all semi-auto, detachable mag-fed rifles (no "military features" necessary), and only a veto by Gov. Brown (a gun ban extremist, but even he wouldn't go that far) prevented the banning of such obvious sporting rifles as the Browning BAR and Remington Model 750.
So what did the Brady Bunch do--praise Gov. Brown, for recognizing the difference, that they had articulated, between sporting rifles and "assault weapons"? Oh, hell no (of course):
Governor Jerry Brown sent conflicting messages to Californians today by vetoing key gun reform policies while signing other measures into law. In particular, the Governor vetoed measures that would have closed dangerous loopholes in California’s assault weapon law (SB 374) . . .
Yep, failing to ban hunting rifles is now a "dangerous loophole."
No "slippery slope"? Got a bridge to sell me, too?
Thanks for pulling all that together, Kurt.
DeleteAs for the rest of your list, without even getting into the Second Amendment issue, all of your may issue permitting schemes are discretionary schemes held unconstitutional in other applications of permitting--the courts are finally coming around to realizing that it makes no sense to forbid arbitrary application of the law in all areas except guns.
ReplyDeleteYou've admitted that it's possible to have a negligent discharge without doing anything wrong--I think the example discussed was someone who slipped and fell hunting and the gun went off from the jarring--yet you want such people to be charged with a crime with no exceptions. What a twisted concept of justice.
Finally, I'll just note what has happened in CT and what Kurt has noted is happening in NY. Good luck getting more than a tiny fraction to comply with any of this bull--that is IF you were ever able to find enough congresscritters ready to commit political seppuku and pass all of this.
All negligent discharges would be criminal but naturally a judge would have the opportunity to rule the extremely rare case a true accident and therefore not negligent. Mechanical failures would be an example.
DeleteAnd what if someone is injured by such a "true accident"? Say all safety rules are being complied with, but you either get a ricochet off a rock, or even a piece of the rock flying out of the ground and into someone?
DeleteDidn't you understand my comment? NEGLIGENCE would be criminal, true accidents would not.
DeleteI understood your comment. I'm, just trying to determine where the boundaries would be in your new formulation of the law--and asking questions about specific instances is the only way I know how to do it.
DeleteFrom your irate answer, I'm guessing that the injury in this case would not result in reclassifying it as negligence, and would leave it as an instance of "a true accident" which you are legally classifying as "Not Negligence."
I was also wondering about liability--after all, we call them negligence lawsuits. I'm still not sure what your position on that would be from your response, but it looks like you're absolving the gun owner of responsibility since you are calling it a true accident and insisting that it is "not negligence."
This is a complete reworking of our legal system, and a scrapping and redefinition of our terms.
Under current law, we would still call this "true accident" as you have dubbed it, negligence. After all, the person failed to maintain full control of his weapon. Same if you fail to maintain control of your vehicle and are thus found at fault for an accident even though you weren't drinking, speeding, etc.
The gun owner would, therefore, be found negligent in a civil court and have to pay hospital bills. However, the line we have drawn between criminal negligence and levels of negligence that don't rise as high would mean no criminal charges for him.
Other cases lie elsewhere on the spectrum, sometimes not being criminal, and sometimes deserving criminal charges. Of course, this is the system you Hate because you want any amount of negligence to result in criminal charges--well, any amount except the negligence that causes a "true accident."
Simon, you're being a tedious pain in the ass - again. I made it very clear about the difference between negligence and an accident. Now you're introducing civil actions into a discussion that up till now was only about criminal.
DeleteNegligence should be a crime. That's all I said. Why the fuck do you have to turn every discussion into a torture of contentious arguing.
Because, Mikeb, you're trying to violate our rights. You have to expect us to fight you on that.
DeleteMikeb, have you given up claiming that these are merely minor inconveniences? Well, demand what you want. It will never happen. I hope you find that much more than a minor inconvenience.
ReplyDeleteTo the truly responsible and law-abiding among you, they'd be a mere minor inconvenience, yes.
DeleteAh yes, the loss of all but two of my guns would be a minor inconvenience--and that is IF I got to keep the old russian bolt action, designed in the 1088's, that has a bayonet attached to it.
DeleteMikeb, you've been shown evidence that may-issue policies are abused. Do you seriously believe that qualified citizens wouldn't be denied in places like New Jersey or California? Do you seriously believe that minorities wouldn't be denied in the south--you know, the states that you insist are fundamentally racist?
DeleteAs I said, I hope you burn with rage every day at how your demands aren't being met.
As I said, I hope you burn with rage every day at how your demands aren't being met.
DeleteNo need to hope, Greg. You just know he does. It's a beautiful thing, isn't it?
Typo above* 1880's
DeleteI figured that, Simon, unless you have a Tatar bow.
DeleteThat it is, Kurt.
DeleteSorry to disappoint, guys, but "burning with rage is the prerogative of you gun nuts.
DeleteJust a Mosin designed in the 80's and adopted in the 90's.
DeleteHowever, a Tatar bow would be pretty cool.
Mike, I'm sure this likely got brought up the last time you posted this, but the administrative load on law enforcement would be pretty spendy and would likely end up being prohibitively burdensome on the owner.
ReplyDeleteAs often happens in the realm of politics, everyone has their wish list, and the final product falls somewhere in between. I do think that a carry permit system at a federal level would be interesting, though with the current norm in this country, it would likely be a shall issue system.
You're right. These are just my ideas of what the best system would be. The closer we can come to these proposals, the better off we'll be.
DeletePlease please please start spending all of your money, and whoever you can get to agree with you, lobbying democrats and other liberal politicians to announce these guidelines as their political platform!
ReplyDelete1. To be clear, you could have a squeaky clean record, be deemed perfectly sane by a psychologist, have 20/20 vision, score perfectly on a written test, nail the bullseye on every shot while adhering perfectly to the rules of safety, but still not get your license because your sheriff doesn't like guns. Or doesn't like you. Or you're black and live in Florida. That's the way you want it?
ReplyDeleteNo, TS, for the hundredth time, I don't approve of abuse like that. There would have to be some kind of oversight to ensure that the ones who decide are basing their decision on something substantial.
DeleteAnd for the hundredth time right back at you, that's what a May-issue system allows. You just defined this exhaustive testing and evaluation standard- why the need to throw individual discretion on top of it? Plus you don't have a problem when we show that that existing May-issue policies deny people without anything substantial all the time.
DeleteYou just told us that the state of Florida is so racist that they actually execute people with racial bias- and this currently goes on you say. Oh, but you'll be sure it doesn't happen with gun licenses? Bias can work the other way too. There could be pro-gun good-ol-boy sheriffs who don't issue licenses because they saw that person at a MDA rally holding a sign up about background checks.
Obviously Florida's death penalty has oversight, and you said it is amazingly racist. What has more oversight than death row (maybe our nuclear weapons program)?
DeleteThe system can be improved without the need for scraping it entirely, that's the may-issue gun system not the death penalty one.
DeleteThe issues TS raises are why discretionary permitting is not allowed in any other area, and why the courts are coming around to declaring it unconstitutional with regards to guns.
DeleteMike, that’s exactly what the courts did in the Peruta case- they made improvements to California’s discretionary permitting system to address abuses. It addresses the “good cause” requirement by saying self-defense is a good cause. It does not “scrap it entirely”. But you oppose the decision. Funny, because I don’t see a “good cause” requirement anywhere in your list of what constitutes “proper gun control”. So why fight efforts to improve the system that you admit needs improving?
DeleteBut let’s also get back to my point about Florida’s death penalty. You say “oversight” will solve the problems with may-issue (though I don’t know why the 9th district’s ruling doesn’t count as oversight to you), and you say Florida’s death penalty system is ripe with racial abuses. But there is a massive amount of oversight for the death penalty. Look at how many layers of bureaucracy, money spent, appeals, waiting, eyes on each case, that go into executing someone on death row. Are you expecting more oversight for a gun licensing system to be able to stop racism?
Let’s put some pieces together, Mike. You tell me if I am wrong on any of these points:
Delete1) I live under a “may-issue” system for carry permits. You support this system.
2) I am denied my right to carry because of this system. I never got the impression you have a problem with this.
3) Sheriffs have been sued because they denied citizens this right. You oppose these suits.
4) Some courts have ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. You strongly object to these decisions, while strongly supporting any that uphold the process.
5) You acknowledge that there are abuses, but oppose efforts to fix it. If not the courts, then how?
6) You want may-issue discretion by local authorities also applied to gun ownership.
7) You say you don’t oppose carry any more than you do ownership.
8) You say I “have nothing to worry about” regarding applying may-issue to ownership.
9) You say you want “oversight” to handle abuse, even though I am currently denied my right to carry, and you oppose any decision which would restore that right to me.
10) You don’t believe in the power of oversight to handle racial abuses (even though we have laws against discrimination), as you are one of the loudest criers of “racism” that I know.
In summary: I am denied my right to carry, you want that power applied to ownership, and you tell me I have nothing to worry about. Yeah, right. If you’re not supporting fights on the abuses regarding my carry rights, why would you stand against abuses of ownership licenses? Especially since you repeatedly said you don’t oppose carry any more than you do ownership.
I've asked this before, but that vision test, is that with or without corrective lenses? No one is going to have time to put contacts in when they hear that noise downstairs, especially since they already have to open a safe. You can't have paranoid people shooting at blurry things in the middle of the night, can you? I'm trying to see if you're wanting to disqualify everyone with myopia.
ReplyDeleteI suppose it could be handled the way drivers licenses are. You're doing that tedious bullshit thing again.
DeleteSorry, I thought the "bump in the night" scenario I described is a concern of yours and one of the reasons you want a vision test.
DeleteSince the right to own a gun is a federal right, rules and regulations concerning guns should be federal and followed by citizens no matter where they live.
ReplyDeleteAh--the sick fantasy world of Mikeb. The good news is that is only a fantasy, and will never be anything else, so there will never be any need to kill anyone to stop it.
ReplyDelete#4 isn't exactly necessary given that it will probably take three years to get passed #1.
ReplyDeleteMike, that thar's "commie" talk! Why, who do you think we are??! With restrictions like that, we (10,000 shooting murders) would be as nightmarish of a country as Canada (173), England (41), Australia (30), or Japan (11). Who would want to live in one of those (safe, democratic) countries, anyhow?
ReplyDeleteWho would want to live in one of those (safe, democratic) countries, anyhow?
DeleteAnyone who does is free to go. Don't forget to write.
On second thought, go ahead and forget.
"Who would want to live in one of those (safe, democratic) countries, anyhow?"
DeleteBaldr, while I cant speak for others, I for one wouldn't dream to moving to any of those countries. But, feel free....
What's that, ss, some rah-rah USA position your espousing?
DeleteAh yes, imply jingoism on the part of Ssg. After all, he said that everyone could make their own choice, but the U.S. was the best fit for him. How terrible!
Delete"some rah-rah USA position your espousing?"
DeleteMike, I do tend to prefer the USA, granted, my travel abroad has been a bit limited to that paid for by the military. Baldr was touting how several countries are superior to the US in an area, and I'm guessing his intent was to imply that we certainly wouldn't want to be like them in the area of the low number of homicides.
He lives but a few hour's drive from that nirvana known as Canada, and I'm sure could easily emigrate, if they'd have him. I'm going to stay here and try to make things work better. I imagine that is also Baldr's aim. We just have different views of better. I tend to make individual rights a priority, and Baldr seems to prefer collective rights.
He also tends to not stick around to defend his positions often. Especially when he plays loose with the facts, such as with his Walmart Shootings site.
In my day there was an expression, America, love it or leave it. I left and have never regretted my decision. I made a post once about why. I'll try to dig it up and repost it.
DeleteBut Mikeb, you haven't really left, since you are still trying to meddle in our affairs.
DeleteIn my day there was an expression, America, love it or leave it. I left and have never regretted my decision. I made a post once about why. I'll try to dig it up and repost it.
DeleteYou left it, but you won't leave it alone. From across an ocean, you still won't be happy until you reshape it after your own twisted image.
You live under the imposed serfdom of European-style "gun control," just like an authority worshiping, docile cud-chewer loves, but you demand that we be subject to that, too.
You will remain disappointed.
I'd just add to Greg and Kurt's statements, why not go ahead and become an Italian Citizen. If you love it there more and dislike it here enough to move, why not go the whole way. It might even have tax advantages for you.
DeleteAlso, here and in the new post you charge SSG with jingoism, but all he said was the equivalent of what you said--people should choose the place they like the best. He just made a different choice than you.
There's a bit of a difference between choosing the place you like best and jingoism.
Deletejin·go·ism noun \ˈjiŋ-(ˌ)gō-ˌi-zəm\ : the feelings and beliefs of people who think that their country is always right and who are in favor of aggressive acts against other countries
jin·go·ism noun \ˈjiŋ-(ˌ)gō-ˌi-zəm\ : the feelings and beliefs of people who think that their country is always right and who are in favor of aggressive acts against other countries
DeleteAnd how many hard-core gun rights advocates in the U.S. think that this "country is always right"?
I, for example, wholeheartedly believe that this country is very wrong on every federal gun law (not to mention restrictions on guns implemented without even the thin veneer of Constitutionality of a legislative law, but merely by executive fiat). How about Fast and Furious? Wounded Knee? The rounding up of Japanese-Americans to put them in concentration camps? Slavery?
I am also far from alone among gun rights advocates who embrace the libertarian rejection of an aggressive, warlike foreign policy, but of course that doesn't fit you preferred narrative, does it?
"the feelings and beliefs of people who think that their country is always right and who are in favor of aggressive acts against other countries"
DeleteI'm not seeing where I fit into that category at all Mike. I've certainly brought up shortcomings of government policy here before and I don't believe I've ever advocated forcing American ways or policies on others.
There have been some others here pushing the believed superiority of the policies of other countries over the US, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't me.