are there any sensible gun regulations you would support?

[gaseousclay]

I think it's universally accepted that the recent tragedy has given a lot of us pause. on the one hand, we dislike the idea of our gun rights being tampered with, on the other hand, I've come across a lot of reasonable ideas to enhance existing gun laws. I'm curious what you guys think.

for example, is it unreasonable to require new gun owners to take a mandatory safety course and test to prove their capability with a firearm? the way I see it, it's not that different from the laws surrounding car ownership. you have to take a test and demonstrate you know the rules of driving and most importantly, safety. Is it unreasonable to regulate private sales, so that gun buyers would have to go through a business with a legally held FFL? Is it unreasonable to require new gun owners to have some sort of safe or means of safely storing their firearms out of reach of others?

 

[SIGSHR]

You must take a test and prove your fitness to operate a motor vehicle on PUBLIC roads, you do NOT have to have a license to drive on private property or to OWN a motor vehicle. Hence I find that analogy wrong. No private sales?-you don't have to go through a dealer to sell a motor vehicle.
You can make your own wine and liquor for home consumption up to a certain limit. Restrictions on where and when firearms can be shot or displayed in public are one thing, what you do behind your own walls and on your property are another. "Reasonable" in the gun debate is always defined by the other side and it's always what THEY want.

 

[TheBigO]

I would agree with having to take a test, but I am a law abiding citizen.

Why change things to make my life more difficult? It does nothing to keep guns away from people that are already breaking the law. Same as when people get a DUI and have their drivers license taken away, they still get in a car and drive.

When proposing new rules and laws the people will follow them who are not law breakers. Its is a bigger issue then more regulations, unless people take responsibility for themselves and hold others accountable then nothing will change.

Everyone hoping that others will do what is right will get us no where

 

[Punisher_1]

I think those are reasonable expectations. I hope those will be the topic in Congress versus banning this or that firearm. If the criminals are said to be using stolen guns they must be the guns lying on the floor in the closet and not in a gun safe. Unless of course they stole the whole safe. The least loved of your version will be the FFL Dealer purchase part because of private sales and gun shows. Some people want to buy under the radar so it won't be tracked in the future for whatever reason.

 

[sigcurious]

A safety course would do nothing but add cost somewhere whether it be a state/federal or private citizen, it does not address or stop people from committing atrocities. Driving is a not a right, and even though people are tested people still drive poorly and retain their licenses.

Requiring use of FFLs for private transfers not only over steps how involved the federal government can be in commerce but again does little to address or prevent future incidents.

I've yet to see an inexpensive safe/RSC that would come close to stopping more than a curious child. Requiring such measures would only create a financial barrier to firearms ownership if the idea was to prevent a determined person from being able to defeat the safe and obtain the firearms in a limited amount of time. If the standard were set that it would not create a large financial burden, the standard of container would fail to keep a determined person from defeating the container.

Having a safe is a good idea but mandating it is not.

All of the suggestions may seem reasonable on their face, but they are not as they do little to actually address or prevent the issues at hand.

 

[MLeake]

Lanza was unable to buy weapons, and used weapons he stole from his mother.

Aurora shooter was a PhD candidate.

How would safety training have prevented either of those incidents?

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . . for example, is it unreasonable to require new gun owners to take a mandatory safety course and test to prove their capability with a firearm?. . . .

Yes, it is. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamantal individual right. If we can't have literacy tests or ask for ID for voting, why should we test capabilities for gun ownership? Besides, felons won't be required to take a safety course. Why should I?

If I don't pass the test, am I going to have to go take training at my own expense in order to qualify to get a handgun? What if I can't afford it? Does that mean I don't get my 2A rights?

. . . . the way I see it, it's not that different from the laws surrounding car ownership. you have to take a test and demonstrate you know the rules of driving and most importantly, safety. . . .

Not to own a car you don't. A 9-year-old who happens to find a big ol' wad of cash can buy a car with no ID, no background check, no license, no nothing. Provided that the child stays off of the public roadways, no license is required (at least in Arkansas). Besides, there's no constitutional right to keep and bear cars.

. . . . Is it unreasonable to regulate private sales, so that gun buyers would have to go through a business with a legally held FFL?

Yes, it is. That only puts a burden, both in terms of dollars and hassle, on those that lawfully obtain their firearms.

. . . .Is it unreasonable to require new gun owners to have some sort of safe or means of safely storing their firearms out of reach of others?

Yes. Again, this places a financial burden on lawful owners, but does nothing to unlawful owners. A single mom working 2 jobs, living in a shady neighborhood, and barely making it by has as much right to defend herself as anyone else. So you'd propose that she should have to buy a safe on top of the expense of a firearm? Even if we're only talking about trigger locks that come with many (if not all) pistols, would you require her to keep it locked up at night?

Training is a good idea. Safety is a good idea. Safes are a good idea. Mandating them is not.

 

[DFrame]

I think making state law supreme and denying local municipalities the right to opt out or make their laws MORE restrictive is a good idea.

 

[zincwarrior]

for example, is it unreasonable to require new gun owners to take a mandatory safety course and test to prove their capability with a firearm? the way I see it, it's not that different from the laws surrounding car ownership. you have to take a test and demonstrate you know the rules of driving and most importantly, safety.

It depends on the intent of the safety course. If the safety course/test is designed to actually insure people are safe and are not unreasonably burdensome (and expensive) then I'd be ok. I shoot a lot on a public range, and the yayhoo factor - even after a mandatory safety video - can be shocking.

However, if its real intent is to keep law abiding, able bodied citizens from firearms then no way.

Translation: if its a program designed by the state of Texas I'd be ok. If its a program designed by the state of Illinois I'd be gravely concerned.
mayhaps a requirement to prove you've taken the course, but no test required.

Is it unreasonable to regulate private sales, so that gun buyers would have to go through a business with a legally held FFL?

I'm ok with this in a big way. I don't like loopholes where people can get around the standard NCIS background check.

Is it unreasonable to require new gun owners to have some sort of safe or means of safely storing their firearms out of reach of others?

Devil is in the details on this one. How is it verified? Whats the minimum level here - something locked or a full blown bolt down safe? If someone can use this to enter the residence to verify without a warrant thats civil war.

 

[musher]

The way you framed the question is loaded.

If you're asking whether folks support reasonable gun regulations, then anyone who says 'no' is by definition unreasonable.

If you're asking what is reasonable, then you should evaluate the proposed restriction by asking

1. Does it serve a compelling government interest (a necessary or crucial interest)
2. Is the restriction narrowly tailored to meet that interest.
3. Is it the least restrictive means for meeting that interest.

Notice that "reducing access to guns" or any other rephrasing of an intent to weaken a fundamental right is NOT a compelling interest.

As far as I can tell, none of the "reasonable" restrictions that "reasonable" people seem to be floating would pass the test--not even close.

 

[zincwarrior]

The least loved of your version will be the FFL Dealer purchase part because of private sales and gun shows. Some people want to buy under the radar so it won't be tracked in the future for whatever reason.

Those are probably the ones who should be tracked.

 

[AKsRul.e]

no new laws!!



Enforce what we have.

 

[ferrarif1fan]

I think everyone here has proved beyond a doubt that there should be no changes to any of the current laws whatsoever. They will bring about no positive change regarding the recent tragedies, so it's pointless.

So, when your child leaves each morning for school, or goes to the mall, or goes to see a movie...kiss them like you may not see them again...cause you may not. But rest assured that your guns and your second amendment rights are safe and sound.

Just wanted to throw a new twist on the topic.

 

[Spats McGee]

I didn't say that there should be no changes. I emailed my congressfolks and told them it was time to get rid of the Fish-In-A-Barrel Zones.

 

[zincwarrior]

For the sake of argument:

A safety course would do nothing but add cost somewhere whether it be a state/federal or private citizen, it does not address or stop people from committing atrocities.

It would be an excellent way to help prevent accidents however. Again, I've seen enough yayhooism in this area that any faith I had in the common sense of other people has been shattered.

Requiring use of FFLs for private transfers not only over steps how involved the federal government can be in commerce but again does little to address or prevent future incidents.

It does however, help to make sure crazies who would fail a background check can't circumvent the system.

I've yet to see an inexpensive safe/RSC that would come close to stopping more than a curious child. Requiring such measures would only create a financial barrier to firearms ownership if the idea was to prevent a determined person from being able to defeat the safe and obtain the firearms in a limited amount of time. If the standard were set that it would not create a large financial burden, the standard of container would fail to keep a determined person from defeating the container.

Again, the strong argument can be made here that you're not trying to protect from a thief, but a child. I'd agree otherwise and would argue this should be part of a safety. It would be under the section "Don't be an Idiot. If you have firearms and kids, lock up your firearms (and if they're rotten your kids too)."

Having a safe is a good idea but mandating it is not.

I can see your point.

 

[musher]

As a "for example" lets take your proposal to require gun training.

I suppose you could propose the "compelling" interest is to reduce firearms deaths/injuries. Problem is, that there are many other sources of injury and death that FAR outweigh the risks associated with firearms. Backyard pools, automobiles, etc. How can reduction of firearms accidents be a compelling interest for the federal government while larger sources of mortality/injury are not?

Would this be narrowly tailored? Nope. Training would do nothing to reduce intentional injuries/deaths by firearms. It might even increase them by making everyone a better shot, eh? It seems related to accidental deaths/injuries, but those are at an all time low and have been decreasing pretty steadily.

Is this the least intrusive measure? Nope, firearms accidents have been decreasing for decades and continue to decrease. Why? Voluntary safety programs, more access to firearms leading to more familiarity, the phase of the moon, who knows? It seems likely that a failure to do anything will not affect the trend and that firearms accidents will decrease to some minimum level even if nothing is done. Doing nothing seems less intrusive than mandating training.

 

[Punisher_1]

Well I don't think we'll have to worry about compromise or what we want they will legislate what they want and we'll have to eat it. Logic won't work in this situation because they have an agenda and a tragedy to fuel it. It's how the government works. They'll actually come up with millions of dollars (borrowed obviously) to implement whatever they legislate.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

If instead of a NICS check i could pay a reasonable fee for a personal license that got me out of NICS checks and dealing with FFLs I would, even if the process was more in depth.

 

[DaleA]

So, when your child leaves each morning for school, or goes to the mall, or goes to see a movie...kiss them like you may not see them again...cause you may not.

Remove every firearm from the face of the earth and the above would still be true.

 

[DaleA]

Musher post 10 says it for me.

Who could POSSIBLY not support something 'SENSIBLE' or something 'REASONABLE'?

No offense to the original poster, really, I just want to NOT let folks write their own definition for words like 'reasonable' or 'sensible' or 'common-sense'.

Wouldn't you like to eat 'good' food? How about watching 'entertaining' movies? Or drive 'fun' cars? Are you willing to let ME define all those terms for you?