Gun Laws

toddler · Sep 22, 2001

Hi all,
I'm back on this topic. Since the general opinion on the board was so averse to any new gun control laws, even in places were we have no useful ones, I've been reading.

Read some stuff by Bill Clede, and by Massod Ayoob. Also read descriptions of some state laws on guns and CCP's. Read guns and ammo, shooting times, and a few other magazines. Also went to a couple of gun shops and spoke to the owners.

It seems that several states have developed what I would consider a reasonable system. The strange thing, is how much variation there is. In Florida for example, you can obtain a CCP if you meet certain criteria I find reasonable. ie) you're not a recent discharge from a psychiatric hospital. New York on the other hand, says you can have a CCP if you're really rich and famous, and we feel like giving you one.
Vermont says, you want to carry a gun, OK if you pass an instant check.

It seems strange that the federal government allows so much variation in something in the constitution. Perhaps that will change if/when the 2nd goes to the supreme court.

I've learned about some strange laws. You can buy old high capacity magazines(pre 1994) for example, but not new ones. Can you actually write a law like that which is legal??? Seems the only thing that one has done is spur the mfgrs to make little concealable guns that are tougher to control. Does this seem stupid to anyone else??

Anyway, the reason for this post is I'd like to know what you think would be reasonable gun control laws. Not to add to the present ones, but to replace them. I'm going to try to come up with a reasonable and unified proposal to send to my congressman. Can't hurt. Besides, he's an independent, he can piss off whoever he wants./w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
Todd
ps) any lawyers know a site where I can review the current federal laws, not interpretations of them? Not as worried about state laws since I think any proposal I make would limit state to state variation if possible.

scruffy · Sep 22, 2001

Toddler, Ok, I'll bite. No ex-felon may own/possess a firearm, no psychiatric patient may own/possess a firearm (until pronounced medically fit by physician), no party may own a fully automatic weapon w/o a federal permit, no party may own weapons capable of firing a round larger than 50 caliber w/o federal permit. Other than that, NO LIMITATIONS ON THE REST OF THE POPULATION IMPOSED BY STATE/FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! Mandatory life sentence (no parole options) for felon convicted of a crime involving a firearm.
Simple? You bet! The guns are NOT responsible for the injuries/murders (they are inanimate objects), it is the people who are handling them, and ONLY a small percentage of the population at that.
Just for information, I am not a NRA member, never have been, nor am I a radical right type, nor of 'militia mentality'. Just your average American citizen.

beenthere · Sep 22, 2001

I support Scruffy in his approach and commend him for his ability to jot down a sensible direction to go. The Constitution, the way I understand it, was to protect us FROM Govt., not to impose more Govt. on us. If a law would work, just make it illegal for criminals, crazy or not, to use a gun for any illegal act. The Feds should, for the most part, stay out of regulation beyond what Scruffy listed.

Anonymous Poster · Sep 22, 2001

Toddler, if you really want to try understanding gun laws, try www.packing.org they cover most state laws.
Now, to add to your confusion, your statement about New York, actually only applys to the big rottin apple and surrounding countys, the rest of the state either passes them out freely, or makes you jump thru hoops to get a license. There is NO logic to the system, and damn little enforcment of the current laws.
NY licenses are honored by about 18 to 30 other states, depending on who you ask, or how much you've pissed off the local cop.
I live outside of Rochester, have a NY license, but ain't allowed to carry in the city of NY or a couple other countys in the area of the city. I am also licensed as a non resident in Pennsylvania. My NY license with photo attached,lists each and every gun I'm allowed to carry, can't carry one legally I'm not licensed for, so there is no swap and trade allowed among friends. My Pa license allows me to carry any handgun anyplace in the commonwealth.
In NY, we cannot carrin courthouses or certain municipal buildings. Local courthouses in Pennsylvania, may or may not allow carry, but at least PA has the good sense to mandate gun lockers for civilians in their Courthouses, should the County make the courthouse a gun free zone.
The area of gun laws is one of the few areas where the Federal GOOBURMUNT seems to understand the 10th amendment. Just in case that encourages you, Levin of Michigan is busy attaching amendments to every guaranteed to pass emergency bill that will mandate the destruction of surplus military vehicles and equipment that has been sold to the public. His bill will also require the destruction of antique war planes.
Bottom line, Politicians see a lot of payoffs, er I mean contributions, coming from all sides of the gun issue, and ain't about to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

cp1969 · Sep 23, 2001

scruffy, does that mean that .54 cal muzzle loaders need a Federal permit?

I also want to broach the subject of felons owning guns. Does this mean that, after serving their sentence, they have no right to protect themselves or family? It seems to me that ex-cons don't usually live in gated communities (some do--Michael Milken) and may be more in need of protection than those of us who have the right to own a gun.

For the most part, I don't think any gun law ever changed the outcome of a crime. We have laws against murder; once one chooses to break that law, why would he worry about what other law was broken at the same time?

Alan L. · Sep 23, 2001

Here's my opinion of how the gun laws should work. Very little interference into gun-owner's lives. Don't sell guns to felons, and do allow concealed guns for law-abiding citizens.

Execute those who use guns (or any other weapon) to kill people. Any other crimes involving a gun should get mandatory life without parole.

Alan L., TX

scruffy · Sep 23, 2001

cp1969, I thought about them, but the antique weapons are not all that plentiful. They could be, along with some machine guns, covered under federal permits that collectors currently obtain for the machine guns. I could see the black powder weapons not requiring plugged barrels as the machine guns currently (at least they were) are required to have.
A convicted felon, whether or not having served full sentence and parole (if required) can petition to have those requirements waived (pardoned). Again to broach another linked subject, voting rights should be included in that restoration process. Should it be automatic? No! They abridged those rights when they committed the crime that they were convicted for.
Do laws prevent crimes? To many people, yes, they will weight the consequences before action, others, no. No law will stop the sociopath from doing his/her 'thing', but then, while the laws are there for the whole public, we as humans recognize there are always a few who think they are too smart to get caught. IMO it is those few that would need to look at the life sentence w/o parole, some would, some wouldn't. Those that wouldn't, DON'T worry about what laws they break. That is why we will always have Peace Officers.

Oh one more thought here, DO YOU live in a gated community? I don't, and I imagine very few members of TBN do! The vast majority of our population DOES NOT live in gated communities. Whats that got to do with things anyway? I suppose that the law could read that IF you live in a gated community, you could not own any firearms....such things are called covenents which are attached to deeds...not for this chile! Edited by scruffy on 09/23/01 01:39 AM (server time).

cp1969 · Sep 23, 2001

scruffy, if you're asking me if I live in a gated community, the answer is no. I don't even know anybody that does. The point I was trying to make is that gated communities represent the most crime-free areas in which to live; ones in which security is such that owning firearms for self-protection would be virtually unnecessary. I also implied that with societies attitude toward ex-cons, very few, other than the white-collar types such as Michael Milken, get to live in such communities and would be far more likely to be living in seedier, less crime-free areas in which owning a firearm for protection might be desireable if not downright necessary. Now, if our goal is for ex-cons, once having served their time, to rejoin society, have families, etc, why is it that we deny them the basic right to protect themselves and family members? Of course, all this presumes that the sentence the criminal served was appropriate to the crime, i.e., that homicidal maniacs are not being released. Maybe too big a presumption to make.

Edited by cp1969 on 09/23/01 11:28 AM (server time).

toddler · Sep 23, 2001

OK Scruffy,
I have no problem with the limits so far, but you and I both know it's still too soft to get enough support. I do agree with your absolute no no's, except the 50caliber thing. While I can see limitting full auto mode weapons, I want to know why you set .50 as a limit. Is that to put a max on the law, ie0 limit people from packing a bazooka?

I appreciate the input, but I think you'll need to give more to get back some of what's been lost. Remember, the anti-gun people have to be satisfied too. I want to know how you feel backround checks should be done. Face recognitions or fingerprint checks? What knowlege should be required for a CCP. Who should keep the records, and who gets access to them?

These may inconvenience you, but they won't ultimately impinge on the 2nd. In exchange, I'll proposing you will at least get the right to own/carry a firearm in all states. I figure in exchange for some hassles, you can have any reasonable firearm, in any state, with as many rounds in the clip as you want. Each state seems to set things up in a very arbitrary way, and some are clearly way beyond reasonable.

The way I read the 2nd, if you were in a civillian militia, they would expect you know how to use a firearm safely, and that you probably aren't too nuts. Clearly that's not the case with many people today. Also, given the term militia, the firearms most protected by the second are probably military, ie. the assault rifles. If the 2nd is intended to protect you against oppressive government, and refers to militia, it doesn't say the government can't keep track of who does what, or is "in" the militia. The way the 2nd refers to militia, the census would tell the government who's in the militia.
Todd

Phred · Sep 23, 2001

Todd,

I'll also bite. Besides I have to keep trying to convert you from the dark side.../w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>

I've learned about some strange laws. You can buy old high capacity magazines(pre 1994) for example, but not new ones. Can you actually write a law like that which is legal???

<hr></blockquote>

This is because the ban on these items that occured in the mid 90's is a manufacturing ban. The federal goverments only tool for gun control is the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. In other words they have no athourity to keep anyone from owning any gun. How they get people for illegal gun ownership is by charging them with the purchase of the weapon. Therefore guns and hicap magazines that were fabricated prior to the ban can still be sold.
This particluar law is really dumb. Since I am sure you won't take my word for it I will give you an example. If you bought an AR-15 prior to the ban it would have a flash suppressor and a bayonet lug. These are both hold overs from the fact that this was designed as a soldiers weapon. Ever hear of anybody killed by a bayonet? I am sure that it has happend but not exactly a major public safety problem. As a result of this dumb law a preban AR-15 is worth about $1200-1500 and a new one is worth about $800. Also you can't have the collapsible stocks on the new ones. Why? Because in theory this makes it easy to conceal. Never mind that the thing is still 20+ inches long! The real kicker is that 99.99999% of america could not tell the difference between the old banned assault weapons and the new improved polticially correct version if their life depended on it.
Most criminals use a cheap handgun most of which are trash. Yet by passing this assault wespons ban a few senators could tell their constituents what a great noble thing they have done. Pure BS.

The really sad thing is that instead of passing this BS that just POs the good guys we could really do something about the problem of gun violence. The solution is real simple: throw the book at criminals. About 13% of the population causes 90+% of the crime.

Fred