PDA

View Full Version : A proposal for regulation from a firearms enthusiast



Paul Pless
12-18-2012, 08:15 PM
I recognize a clear need to address firearm related violence, including the illicit use of firearms in crime, domestic violence, political violence (assasinations), mass shootings, as well as suicides, accidents, and unauthorized use , ie by the mentally ill or by children.

I would like for those advocating stricter firearms regulation to recognize that the majority, by a very large margin, of all firearm owners and users, do so in a responsible and safe manner and in no way find gun violence to be acceptable or moral. As such, any new firearm restrictions should not be looked upon as being punitive towards current legal firearms owners, but rather as necessary to improve the safety of our society as a whole.

Having said that I propose the following tiered regulation system:

Use the current federal background check system for all commercial and private sales of tier one firearms. Reinstate a waiting period of seven days for all such firearms purchases. Applicants for purchase of firearm should demonstrate passage of a firearm safety course (similar to most state's hunter safety course). All guns must be stored in certified locked gun vault or be fitted with a trigger lock which if removed illegally will render the gun unusable. Certificate of liability insurance, similar to auto liability insurance, must be current for all owners of tier one firearms.

Tier One firearms will include:


rimfire hand and long guns of any action type excepting full auto with a maximum capacity of ten rounds, plus one additional round in the chamber
all action type of shotguns, excepting full auto with a maximum magazine capacity of five rounds, plus one additional round in the chamber
all action type of centerfire rifles excepting full auto with a maximum capacity of five rounds, plus one additional round in the chamber
single and double action revolver type centerfire handguns with a maximum capacity of six rounds in the cylinder, and a barrel length of more than 5˝"
certain special purpose handguns, either bolt or single shot, will be considered centerfire rifles for the purpose of regulation (by way of example, i am thinking of the remington xp100 and thompson contender types)
All semi-automatic handguns will be banned for sale as tier one guns.



Existing owners of tier one guns will have one year to comply with the Federal background check at no cost to themselves. If a current tier one gun owner wishes to surrender his weapon rather than comply, they may transfer the ownership of such a gun to any FFL dealer (I'm assuming a sale here) or the Federal government will buy back the weapon at fair market value as dtermined six months before this proposal becomes law.

All other weapons will be considered Tier 2 for licensing purposes. Ownership of Tier 2 weapons will fall under the current guidelines for Class III firearms, which include an extensive federal background check, approval of the head of local law enforcement agency, random audits of the safe storage of such firearms. Again for current owners of Tier 2 firearms, there will be no cost for application for permit in the first year after adoption of this law. Recognizing that some local law enforcement agencies currently do not approve any applications for Class III firearms, a special federal level appeals process will be put in place for any denials by local law enforcement. Other than the background check processing fee, there should be no exceptional cost to own more than one Tier 2 type firearm.

Of course the regulations for safe storage and firearms training for Tier 1 firearms also applies to Tier 2 firearms.

This above proposal will not pre-empt any state or local laws or regulations for concealed or open carry or transport of guns in those jurisdictions.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-18-2012, 08:20 PM
Take away all permits to carry concealed weapons except for peace officers, and require transportation permits for taking handguns to the range.

Todd D
12-18-2012, 08:38 PM
Remove all hand guns from private ownership with the possible exception of bonafide anitques for which NO ammunition will be permitted.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-18-2012, 08:43 PM
Now we're getting somewhere. :D

Phillip Allen
12-18-2012, 08:45 PM
Take away all permits to carry concealed weapons except for peace officers, and require transportation permits for taking handguns to the range.

take em from cops too

Paul Pless
12-18-2012, 08:45 PM
You guys do understand that the current class iii firearms permitting process is in depth and extensive and includes room for comment by neighbors and other associates. Its not a rubber stamp process.

Phillip Allen
12-18-2012, 08:48 PM
Peter, tomorrow morning, I might like to go to the range... I like to get there when it opens at 0800... can I get a permit in time?... can I get a permit on a weekend or holliday?

Phillip Allen
12-18-2012, 08:49 PM
You guys do understand that the current class iii firearms permitting process is in depth and extensive and includes room for comment by neighbors and other associates. Its not a rubber stamp process.

taking property away from citizens is OFTEN a rubber stamp process

wardd
12-18-2012, 08:56 PM
they'll have to pry my bb gun from my cold dead hands

Nicholas Scheuer
12-18-2012, 09:04 PM
Don't agree at all with Todd D's wish to confiscate all handguns except for antiques having no ammunition. Lots of legal handguns are intended for home defense, and the guns in the hands of scumbags and douche-wads won't be going away soon.

Additionally, target shooting with pistols of decent barrel length is a viable sport.

Peach
12-18-2012, 09:12 PM
Mr Pless,

Another very good post on the subject. Requiring locked storage of all firearms not under the direct control of the licensed owner is something I've long considered a sensible and attainable remedy for some of the random gun violence. I would go a bit further and and suggest that all semi-auto firearms be reclassified as Class III, including rimfire, shotguns, and centerfire rifles of any calibre, as well as all semi-auto handguns.

Mrleft8
12-18-2012, 09:12 PM
Don't agree at all with Todd D's wish to confiscate all handguns except for antiques having no ammunition. Lots of legal handguns are intended for home defense, and the guns in the hands of scumbags and douche-wads won't be going away soon.

Additionally, target shooting with pistols of decent barrel length is a viable sport.
The guns used to kill Mrs. Lanza were bought by her for her home defense. She and 27 other people were shot and killed by a person who had (tacit) permission to use, and had uninhibited (apparently) access to those guns.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-18-2012, 09:14 PM
take em from cops too

Works for the Brits

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-18-2012, 09:14 PM
taking property away from citizens is OFTEN a rubber stamp process


Yeah, I live in a police state. Oh brother.

S/V Laura Ellen
12-18-2012, 09:20 PM
Paul's proposal seems workable.
I doubt that it would ever get passed, this has never been a rational issue (from either side).

Ian McColgin
12-18-2012, 09:36 PM
Not bad, Paul. Were it politically viable I'd be most interested.

The pooh-pooh-ing nattering nabobs of negativism who contend that since the law won't prevent every horror it's pointless don't, we hope, favor decriminalizing bank robbery and such.

I especially like the idea of insurance and strict liability for any damage caused by the discharge of a firearm for any reason, quite apart from whether some criminal action might flow from the incident.

WX
12-18-2012, 09:44 PM
Probably one of the most interesting gun threads I have seen.
This may be of interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Current_Australian_firea rm_laws

Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories with different levels of control. The categories are:


Category A: Rimfire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rimfire_ammunition) rifles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle) (not semi-automatic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm)), shotguns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotguns) (not pump-action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump-action) or semi-automatic), air rifles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rifles), and paintball markers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paintball_markers). A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.



Category B: Centrefire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrefire) rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzleloader) firearms made after 1 January 1901. Apart from a "Genuine Reason", a "Genuine Need" must be demonstrated, including why a Category A firearm would not be suitable.



Category C: Semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.



Category D: Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.



Category H: Handguns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun) including air pistols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pistol) and deactivated handguns. This class is available to target shooters. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of six months using club handguns, and a minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun.

Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Action_Shooting) and Metallic Silhouette (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_Silhouette). IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 handguns that meet the IPSC rules, but larger calibers are not approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests. Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols: magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handguns held as part of a collection were exempted from these limits.

Category R/E: Restricted weapons: machine guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun), rocket launchers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder-launched_missile_weapon), assault rifles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle), flame-throwers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame-thrower), anti-tank guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_gun), Howitzers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howitzer), artillery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery), etc. can be owned by collectors in some states provided that these weapons have been rendered permanently inoperable. They are subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as fully functioning firearms.

Certain Antique (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antique_guns) firearms can in some states be legally held without licences. In other states they are subject to the same requirements as modern firearms.
All single-shot muzzleloading firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 are considered antique firearms. Four states require licences for antique percussion revolvers and cartridge repeating firearms, but in Queensland and Victoria a person may possess such a firearm without a licence, so long as the firearm is registered (percussion revolvers require a license in Victoria).
Australia has very tight restrictions on items which are far less controlled in comparable societies such as the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom). Air pistols, elsewhere unrestricted, are as difficult to get as centrefire and rimfire handguns, and low-powered airguns are as difficult as cartridge arms to license. Airsoft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airsoft) guns are banned in all states and non-firing replicas banned in most. Suppressors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor) (or 'silencers') which are legal in the UK and New Zealand, are extremely restricted in Australia to a few government bodies.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#cite_note-3)

George Jung
12-18-2012, 10:28 PM
Not bad, Paul. Were it politically viable I'd be most interested.

The pooh-pooh-ing nattering nabobs of negativism who contend that since the law won't prevent every horror it's pointless don't, we hope, favor decriminalizing bank robbery and such.

I especially like the idea of insurance and strict liability for any damage caused by the discharge of a firearm for any reason, quite apart from whether some criminal action

might flow from the incident.


Spiro, how does the insurance work in cases such as Connecticut?

David G
12-18-2012, 10:36 PM
Some data to consider when designing remedies:

http://pol102.tumblr.com/

Paul Pless
12-18-2012, 10:36 PM
Spiro, how does the insurance work in cases such as Connecticut?liability insurance should cover the cost associated with the investigation, cleanup, and recovery from a criminal or accidental use of a gun, as well as make a compensatory payment for loss of life or disability created based on standard actuarial calculations. . .

George Jung
12-18-2012, 10:40 PM
So in the case of this nutjob - would his mothers' policy, had she had one, cover such an incident? Looking at the estimable payouts, that's one expensive policy. And of course

- no one to hold responsible.

Paul Pless
12-18-2012, 10:45 PM
So in the case of this nutjob - would his mothers' policy, had she had one, cover such an incident? Looking at the estimable payouts, that's one expensive policy. And of course

- no one to hold responsible.Under my proposal, yes the guns being owned by the mother would have been required to have a policy paid for by her. There were gleeful suggestions on another thread that requiring liability insurance of gun manufacturers might put the gun makers out of business. I think the cost of insurance is greatly over-estimated by some. There are 300 million guns in private hands in the Unites States. More than 99% are never involved in criminal or unsafe use, that's a hell of a large pool to spread risk around. . .

Donn
12-18-2012, 10:56 PM
Paul..I applaud your repeated efforts to reason with the crackpots on this forum, but you're wasting your time. They are not interested in compromise or reason.

Peach
12-18-2012, 11:00 PM
Then perhaps the crackpots need to be dragged kicking and screaming into a new reality.

Donn
12-18-2012, 11:05 PM
Then perhaps the crackpots need to be dragged kicking and screaming into a new reality.

Nah...NRA-ILA has proved to be adequate advocacy against the crackpots.

Oysterhouse
12-18-2012, 11:36 PM
Mr. Pless I appreciate the time, thought and effort that you have put into this proposal. It is obvious from this and other threads that you are doing quite a bit of soul searching in the aftermath of these shootings. I know that I am, and I think that most responsible gun owners are doing the same.

There is great pressure and a great desire to do something.

That said, how would your proposal have prevented or mitigated the tragedy of the school shooting? I believe that it was you that stated on another thread that the same results could have been achieved if the shooter had used an old army revolver and a hand full of paper caps. ( for the non gun savvy that is a 150yr old black powder pistol).

Most of your proposals will produce a lot of irritation, inconvenience, and expense for law abiding responsible gun owners. Criminals will ignore the law. Anti gunners will say that we need to restrict more, and more, and more ( See post #3).

I am not advocating doing nothing. An armed populace can be a menace to itself if it is not an informed, educated and responsible populace. We need to institute firearms safety training in our public schools and we need to do a better job of identifying mentally unstable individuals at that level. We should make the cost of safety training tax deductible for adults. Gun safes should be tax deductible (actually they are, see below).

I could possibly support the concept of your tiered access to firearms with a fair amount of tinkering. I.E --- If I am going to be required to qualify for a class III weapon then I may as well go ahead and get a machine gun with a short barrel and a silencer--- I don’t think that was exactly your intent.

The “Gun Safe Loophole”
This information was accurate a few years ago, things may have changed. Check with your tax professional first.
The IRS will allow you to deduct the cost of a safe in which you keep tax records. They do not restrict the size of the safe, they do not say that you can only store tax records in the safe. Buy a big gun safe and keep your tax records and your guns in it.
Gun safes are cheap and readily available, every responsible gun owner should have one.

mdh
12-19-2012, 12:08 AM
The "assault" weapons ban was dropped because it had no effect whatsoever. What are you trying to accomplish with your plan, other than to make legal firearms more expensive, or available only to the rich or connected.

htom
12-19-2012, 12:25 AM
Bold for additions, underline for strikethrough *n is a footnote


Use the current federal background check system for all commercial and private sales of tier one firearms. Reinstate a maximumwaiting period of seven consecutive calendar days *0 for the first of each class ofall such firearms purchases unless an exemption is granted by a state or federal judge.*1. Applicants for purchase of firearm should demonstrate passage of a firearm safety course (similar to most state's current *2 hunter safety course). All guns must be safely stored in certified locked gun vault or be fitted with a trigger lock which if removed illegally will render the gun unusable. *3 Certificate of liability insurance, similar to auto liability insurance, must be current for all owners of tier one firearms. Upon cancellation, owners will have one year to find alternative insurance; firearms may continue to be used during this period and will not be confiscated for being uninsured. Firearms confiscated for any reason will be held without damage or alteration or modification pending return to the owner or his designated agent.

Tier One firearms will include:

rimfire hand and long guns of any action type excepting full auto with a maximum capacity of twentyten rounds, plus one additional round in the chamber
all action type of shotguns, excepting full auto with a maximum magazine capacity of nine[U]five rounds, plus one additional round in the chamber
all action type of centerfire rifles excepting full auto with a maximum capacity of thirtyfive rounds, plus one additional round in the chamber
single and double action revolver type centerfire handguns with a maximum capacity of ten[B] [U]six rounds in the cylinder, and a barrel length of more than [B]2"[B] 5˝"
certain special purpose handguns, either bolt or single shot, will be considered centerfire rifles for the purpose of regulation (by way of example, i am thinking of the remington xp100 and thompson contender types) *4
All semi-automatic handguns will be banned for sale as tier one guns.

Existing owners of tier one guns will have one year to comply with the Federal background check at no cost to themselves. If a current tier one gun owner wishes to surrender his weapon rather than comply, they may transfer the ownership of such a gun to any [B]qualified buyer. FFL dealer (I'm assuming a sale here) or the Federal government will buy back the weapon at fair market value as dtermined six months before this proposal becomes law. Such sales may be undone if it is discovered that the seller should have been deemed to have passed the background check, and both seller and buyer compensated by the Federal government; such compensation to be at least ten times the value of the sold items, divided equally between buyer and seller, and total cost of legal representation, court costs, fines, fees, and any other expenses to either party, paid to that party.

All other weapons will be considered Tier 2 for licensing purposes. Ownership of Tier 2 weapons will fall under the current guidelines for Class III firearms, which include an extensive federal background check, approval of the head of local law enforcement agency, random audits of the safe storage of such firearms. Again for current owners of Tier 2 firearms, there will be no cost for application for permit in the first year after adoption of this law. Recognizing that some local law enforcement agencies currently do not approve any applications for Class III firearms, a special federal level appeals process will be put in place for any denials by local law enforcement. Other than the background check processing fee, there should be no exceptional cost to own more than one Tier 2 type firearm.

Of course the regulations for safe storage and firearms training for Tier 1 firearms also applies to Tier 2 firearms.

This above proposal will not pre-empt any state or local laws or regulations for concealed or open carry or transport of guns in those jurisdictions.

*0 consecutive calendar days, because otherwise a day will consist of days that the state wants to count.
*1 Domestic violence victims are one class where emergency license, training, and purchase may be appropriate. Here in Minnesota we can do all of this in less than 24 hours if it's really needed.
*2 Remove the temptation to make the class impossible to pass.
*3 Certified storage is ... no. Nightmare to design, install, security of installation documents risks theft of arms, .... The trigger lock requirement is a fantasy. There is no such device, and I seriously doubt there ever could be. So this is a requirement for the certified vaults. You could add "or cable or chamber locks", but trigger locks as required by this law will never exist. Probably not even for new firearms designs.
*4 We've had these lawsuits. We won. You don't get to undo it. The XP-100 and T/C are pistols. If anything, the Remington 600 should be classified as a long-barreled pistol, as the action was first used in the XP-100.

The government is presumably a qualified buyer, but I fear it could become a bully in the market.

Keith Wilson
12-19-2012, 12:51 AM
Well that started as a pretty modest proposal, and just got gutted most thoroughly.

Any gun regulation that does anything to reduce bad uses of guns WILL inconvenience law-abiding citizens. It will also probably cost you money.

htom
12-19-2012, 12:56 AM
Well that started as a pretty modest proposal, and just got gutted most thoroughly.

Any gun regulation that does anything to reduce bad uses of guns WILL inconvenience law-abiding citizens. It will also probably cost you money.

How do the changes I made "reduce bad uses of guns"?

Keith Wilson
12-19-2012, 12:58 AM
I don't think they do. I think the changes you made would reduce the effectiveness of Paul's proposed law, and I think it was a modest proposal to start with..

Peach
12-19-2012, 01:18 AM
Any gun regulation that does anything to reduce bad uses of guns WILL inconvenience law-abiding citizens. It will also probably cost you money.

Maybe, maybe not.
Certainly, many law-abiding citizens are willing to suffer some degree of inconvenience to reduce the level of gun violence in this country. Any many law abiding hunters and target shooters are likely to suffer no inconvenience at all.

I'm not particularly inconvenienced that I can't own fully automatic weapons, or have to fill out a background check to purchase a firearm, or have to be fingerprinted to secure a carry permit. If this and more is what it takes to put some curbs on the NRA-ILA crackpots, that let's move forward on some sensible restrictions.

htom
12-19-2012, 01:24 AM
I don't think Paul meant to ban firearms that already exist, but he did with those ammo counts. I'm not sure that the numbers I put in cover all firearms (I seem to remember a 12 shot .22 revolver with two barrels.) I should have used 7/8" for the minimum barrel length (some Derringers are probably less than even that!) There's a county in PA that's closed their license processing office while they search for funding for it. It appears that the clock counting the n days they have to do things has stopped while they do this, but those whose licenses are expiring do not have a stopped clock, and cannot go to a different county's license office to get renewals. You may find this funny. I think it's entirely predictable, and infuriating.

Nicholas Scheuer
12-19-2012, 01:35 AM
You're mistaken, Mrleft8, Ms Lanza's guns were used for "target shooting", according to the Media. Obviously, she should've kept them locked up when not at the range, as my rifles and shotgun are. Equally obvious, to us anyway (thanks to the media), is that her alimony payments were more than adequate for her to have sought professional help for Adam, as she was fully aware that he was "anti-social".

mdh
12-19-2012, 01:57 AM
Maybe, maybe not.
Certainly, many law-abiding citizens are willing to suffer some degree of inconvenience to reduce the level of gun violence in this country. Any many law abiding hunters and target shooters are likely to suffer no inconvenience at all.

I'm not particularly inconvenienced that I can't own fully automatic weapons, or have to fill out a background check to purchase a firearm, or have to be fingerprinted to secure a carry permit. If this and more is what it takes to put some curbs on the NRA-ILA crackpots, that let's move forward on some sensible restrictions.

That's just it, the only proposals being offered inconvenience law abiding citizens, and do nothing to curb gun violence.

Gerarddm
12-19-2012, 02:18 AM
Paul's suggestions are fine as they go, but more needs to be done. Assault rifle ban died out, perhaps it simply was not in place long enough.

In a previous post I advocated making illegal any civilian possession of any gun-related accessory that should properly only be in the hands of the military or authorized law enforcement.

I am also coming around to the opinion that gun use in commission of a crime automatically qualifies for extra severe punishment for the perp, said costs to be paid from higher taxes on gun and gun related accessories.

Too bad SCOTUS outlawed state or local laws that could start to get a hold on the gun problem locally - you know, the old 'turn in your guns until you leave town' trope from the Old West.

Meli
12-19-2012, 04:51 AM
good stuff Paul, it will need tweaking but a good base to start from.Y>

PeterSibley
12-19-2012, 05:04 AM
Strength to your arm Paul although an endorsement from me is probably a negative on this subject.

LeeG
12-19-2012, 05:26 AM
Paul, thanks for putting out your thoughts. Where I grew up some families were very lax in securing their guns, still remember a "friend" who scared the crap out of me by shooting at me with his dads shotgun with the shot and powder removed using only the primer to blast the wad at me. Maybe there was some powder left, I was about 30' away and it left a red mark.

purri
12-19-2012, 05:43 AM
Meli, you don't know the bastardry that sundry states impose under the generic Clth laws. Mind you the states have NEVER complied with the Clth directive but merely used it to further their own agendas and WA and SA are the prime offenders. As for rifle ranges then it's a matter of salami slicing to eliminate use of larger calibres on the pretext of calibre= projectile carry of the mega military calibres without considering antiques and intermediate rounds. Your comments are with scant regard for the realities of firearms ownership and responsible use. I posit that you are a partially uninformed outsider with a knee jerk response. Now go away eh!
good stuff Paul, it will need tweaking but a good base to start from.Y>

Bob Adams
12-19-2012, 06:03 AM
Nah...NRA-ILA has proved to be adequate advocacy against the crackpots.

The crackpots prove the NRA, as flawed as it is, is needed.

PeterSibley
12-19-2012, 06:18 AM
That's just it, the only proposals being offered inconvenience law abiding citizens, and do nothing to curb gun violence.

At the risk of thread drift that is not necessarily so according to the New England Journal of Medicine.
Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Homehttp://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506#t=articleResults for the complete article.

LeeG
12-19-2012, 06:56 AM
At the risk of thread drift that is not necessarily so according to the New England Journal of Medicine.
Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Homehttp://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506#t=articleResults for the complete article.

Oh the inconvenience

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
12-19-2012, 07:08 AM
Mostly a sound set of proposals.

Can you explain why the random audit of the storage is restricted to tier two?

In the UK the random audit applies to everything - in theory - but in practice is seldom done after the first couple of years.

Canoez
12-19-2012, 07:18 AM
The crackpots prove the NRA, as flawed as it is, is needed.

Tell me, Bob - how does what Paul proposed change the way you use firearms?

Paul Pless
12-19-2012, 07:53 AM
Paul, thanks for putting out your thoughts. Where I grew up some families were very lax in securing their guns, still remember a "friend" who scared the crap out of me by shooting at me with his dads shotgun with the shot and powder removed using only the primer to blast the wad at me. Maybe there was some powder left, I was about 30' away and it left a red mark.

I guess my family was pretty lax by current 'norms'. Guns were omni-present in my family. They weren't treated as anything other than tools, they weren't venerated or exulted. It was all pretty normal. We shot together as a family often, mostly skeet and hunted birds together in the fall. They were treated with common sense and safety in mind, kept mostly unloaded, on gun racks or in closets. A shotgun was often used (daily) in training pointers. At times a ranch rifle might be kept under the seat of a pickup or a shotgun kept in the barn. No one in my family would have ever pointed a shotgun at another person, playing or otherwise. Times change, responsibility demands a different view towards firearm storage and use these days, although I think the attitude towards guns that was instilled in myself and my brothers from a young age remains a healthy one.

John Smith
12-19-2012, 07:58 AM
Now we're getting somewhere. :D

Sans the right to make warrantless searches, how do you propose to accomplish this?

John Smith
12-19-2012, 07:59 AM
Mr Pless,

Another very good post on the subject. Requiring locked storage of all firearms not under the direct control of the licensed owner is something I've long considered a sensible and attainable remedy for some of the random gun violence. I would go a bit further and and suggest that all semi-auto firearms be reclassified as Class III, including rimfire, shotguns, and centerfire rifles of any calibre, as well as all semi-auto handguns.

How do you enforce it?

Paul Pless
12-19-2012, 08:02 AM
I don't think Paul meant to ban firearms that already exist, but he did with those ammo counts.

Actually I did. I wanted to leave most hunting and sporting firearms available as is, regardless of action type. The easiest and most direct way to do so is to simply place a restriction on magazine size. Note, that I mostly have magazine size limited to five which is generally 2 more than what is often legal or traditional for most sporting shooting scenarios. Selfishly, I allow revolvers, full size generally. I say selfishly, because among my favourite of all types of firearms are Colt Single Action Army pistols. Not too selfishly though, they are mostly collector pieces, sometimes used for hunting and target practice, rarely used in crime, difficult to conceal, and relatively slow in action and in reloading.

I left in place a mechanism, for all other types of gun ownership, including my also personally cherished 1911's. Such a mechanism would require an extensive background check and annual audits from federal authorities. This goes far further and is much more 'intrusive' than any current regulation of firearms in the U.S.

I purposely made the regulations essentially based on magazine size first and action type (with regards to handguns) secondarily. This avoids loopholes like what plagued the Assault Weapons Ban.

Its a proposal for real change.

keyhavenpotterer
12-19-2012, 08:05 AM
Your constitution killed those kids.

LeeG
12-19-2012, 08:23 AM
I guess my family was pretty lax by current 'norms'. Guns were omni-present in my family. They weren't treated as anything other than tools, they weren't venerated or exulted. It was all pretty normal. We shot together as a family often, mostly skeet and hunted birds together in the fall. They were treated with common sense and safety in mind, kept mostly unloaded, on gun racks or in closets. A shotgun was often used (daily) in training pointers. At times a ranch rifle might be kept under the seat of a pickup or a shotgun kept in the barn. No one in my family would have ever pointed a shotgun at another person, playing or otherwise. Times change, responsibility demands a different view towards firearm storage and use these days, although I think the attitude towards guns that was instilled in myself and my brothers from a young age remains a healthy one.

In retrospect I think that boy was beat by his dad. My dad grew up in a rural area with guns a minor tool, the idea of guns for recreation really didn't make sense. That's what boats and fishing were for. Grampie had a locked gun room in the barn that us boys always wanted to see when we visited. He had all kinds of re-loading gear, had some kind of statewide marksmanship award from 1920 or so. Very stern about gun safety. We grew up in the burbs and Dad said there was no need to have guns in the house living so close to other people. Like I said we were surrounded by people who didn't lock their ammo and guns and little boys can be like monkeys getting into everything.

Bob Adams
12-19-2012, 08:27 AM
Tell me, Bob - how does what Paul proposed change the way you use firearms?

The way I use them? Not at all. They are registered and locked up. Im not fond of the idea of someone entering my home for the purpose of inspecting my storage methods, such searches with out suspision of violation and without a warrant would be uncontitutional IMHO. The reason for my statement was after Paul posted what many would consider "reasonable" regulations the immediate reactions were it was not enough. Without the NRA to temper such people, our gun rights would dissapear, again, IMHO. I do not like what the NRA has become, but it is all we have to defend our rights.

keyhavenpotterer
12-19-2012, 08:29 AM
Background checks don't stop a man who later become mentally ill or vengefull then shooting people. Insurance only compensates people already shot.

You need to organise a transition to a gun free society.

Shoot guns in registered licensed gun clubs if you want to then leave the weapon there and go home.

Only a livestock farmer needs a pistol.

Nobody else needs one.

Todd D
12-19-2012, 09:27 AM
I would be happy to see the following. Open gun ownership, but ALL guns would be stored at licensed gun ranges with 24/7 security. At the range guns would be stored in a secure vault of the same security level as a bank vault. The vault would be closed with time locks during hours when the range wasn't open. The vault could only be opened when two licensed, background checked range staff members were physicaly on site during normal operating hours. All ammunition to be stored in a separate vault with similar controls on opening. Ammunition to be issued in 10 round increments for use on range only and proof of consumption would be required before a further 10 rounds could be issued (proof could be targets or a signed statement by the range master. Membership in a gun range would require a one year waiting period accompanied by the equivalent of a top secret security clearance level background check (full FBI investigation going back 20 years). Any violation of the law would bar a person from gun range membership (including parking tickets, dog off leash, etc.). Security checks would also include a full psychiatric evaluation involving no fewer than 10 total sessions with two different psychitrists, who would have to provide consistent evaluations. The two psychiatrists would not be allowed to communicate with one another concerning an applicant. Security checks would be required every 5 years for contuinued gun range membership. All costs for the operation of the range would be borne by the members. All costs for background checks would be borne by the individual applying to join a gun range. Hunting would be permitted as follows. A hunter would take the hunting license and all other required deer/moose, etc. permits/tags to the police station 90 days before the desired hunting period to apply for a permit to take the hunting rifle from the gun range. After a background check covering the period since the last gun background check a permit would be issued. Once a permit was issued, the hunter would be assigned a hunting partner at random and the hunter could buy 5 rounds of hunting ammunition from the police. Upon completion of the hunt the hunter would return the gun to the range, where the posession permit would be voided and returned to the police along with all unused ammunition. Ammunition usage would be certified by an affidavit signed by the hunter and the hunter's hunting partner. Part of the affidavit would be permission for the police to perform unannounced searches off all the hunters property and premises for 90 days after the hunting period to verify that all ammunition was either used or tuened in. Hunting licenses would be granted only to gun range members of 5+ years standing who had received 100 hours of hunting safety training from licensed trainers. All costs associated with hunting background checks would be borne by the hunter. Finally, all gun range members would be subject to unannounced person, property and premises searches during the period of gun ownership. In addition, gun range members would be required to have monthly drug tests. Failure of a drug test would permanently bar a person from gun range membership and other penalties as might be deemed appropriate (fines, prison, etc.). Pretty liberal if you ask me.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
12-19-2012, 09:29 AM
Can we make paragraphs compulsory?

Paul Pless
12-19-2012, 09:32 AM
Pretty liberal if you ask me.Sounds punitive and overly penalizes the vast majority of responsible gun owners.

The restriction on five cartridges for hunters is quite unreasonable. Have you ever been hunting for dove, quail, upland game birds, or water fowl? The first thing a responsible hunter does that has traveled to hunt is to re-zero his rifle, this could take a half dozen rounds or more.

Todd D
12-19-2012, 09:39 AM
For some reason paragraphs will no longer work from my browser. I put them in , but they always disappear. Simple solution to the bird huntin issue raised. Restrict hunting to deer, moose and elk.Paul - the intent is to discourage gun ownership hopefully leading to a gun free society.

John Smith
12-19-2012, 09:40 AM
Background checks don't stop a man who later become mentally ill or vengefull then shooting people. Insurance only compensates people already shot.

You need to organise a transition to a gun free society.

Shoot guns in registered licensed gun clubs if you want to then leave the weapon there and go home.

Only a livestock farmer needs a pistol.

Nobody else needs one.

Fine goals: any suggestions on how to get there from here?

A solution NEEDS to address the 300 plus million guns that have already been sold, and those that will sell until the solution becomes law.

John Smith
12-19-2012, 09:43 AM
I don't with to offend anyone, but guns have a very long shelf life. No matter what regulations are put in place concerning their purchase, keeping track of them for the next few decades will be virtually impossible.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
12-19-2012, 09:44 AM
.... Have you ever been hunting for dove, quail, upland game birds, or water fowl? The first thing a responsible hunter does that has travelled to hunt is to re-zero his rifle, this could take a half dozen rounds or more.

Quail, with a rifle? now that would be unorthodox - although the wife has been known to take partridge (in flight) with a single shot rimfire pistol.

Todd D
12-19-2012, 09:44 AM
The transition to a gun free society could be accomplished by having a nation wide gun collection by the national guard. Just for fun have the guard paint their helmets light blue and their helicopters black then fly them into neighborhoods :D

Paul Pless
12-19-2012, 09:46 AM
The transition to a gun free society could be accomplished by having a nation wide gun collection by the national guard. Just for fun have the guard paint their helmets light blue and their helicopters black then fly them into neighborhoods :DQuite funny.:d

I'm imagining Phillip's head exploding right now. . .

John Smith
12-19-2012, 09:52 AM
The transition to a gun free society could be accomplished by having a nation wide gun collection by the national guard. Just for fun have the guard paint their helmets light blue and their helicopters black then fly them into neighborhoods :D

You think there's a chance in hell of getting a law passed that lets the government come into your home and take your guns?

That would violate the 4th amendment, no?

Peach
12-19-2012, 10:01 AM
How do you enforce it?

The requirement for secure storage of all firearms can be enforced on an infraction basis. When a gun is used in a crime, the investigation often leads to the owner of the gun. If negligent, the owner at that time could be subject to criminal and civil penalties if the gun was not secured properly.

I don't think any of us want our homes searched on a random basis to determine if our firearms are properly stored. But a few high profile cases where gun owners are found negligent for crimes committed with guns they had not safely stored will move people to action.

Paul Pless
12-19-2012, 10:06 AM
any suggestions on how to get there from here?If we are still stalking about firearm regulation withing the context of the Connecticut school shootings one month from now, there will exist a real chance at firearm regulation reform.

John Smith
12-19-2012, 10:07 AM
The requirement for secure storage of all firearms can be enforced on an infraction basis. When a gun is used in a crime, the investigation often leads to the owner of the gun. If negligent, the owner at that time could be subject to criminal and civil penalties if the gun was not secured properly.

I don't think any of us want our homes searched on a random basis to determine if our firearms are properly stored. But a few high profile cases where gun owners are found negligent for crimes committed with guns they had not safely stored will move people to action.

I'm trusting my memory here, but I recall cases where the guy who killed people broke into locked security to access the guns. People die and who knows what the kids do with the guns.

This is another law that works like speed limits. Penalty comes after it is broken. Attention is brought when the crime has been committed and people are already dead.

If we get back to the car analogy, leaving guns accessable is a lot like leaving your car unlocked with the keys in it.

To be clear, I believe it is possible to make many gun owners more responsible, but those are not the ones I fear will kill people.

I don't think any form of controlling guns would have prevented last week's massacre. IMO, we cannot disarm society, and we cannot create a place where whackos cannot obtain guns. The window for such laws has passed.

John Smith
12-19-2012, 10:10 AM
If we are still stalking about firearm regulation withing the context of the Connecticut school shootings one month from now, there will exist a real chance at firearm regulation reform.

Let me make this clear. I have no doubt we can change some laws. What I doubt is that changing those laws will do anything to prevent another incident of this nature.

Firearm regulations can change all you wish, but I don't think anything you change in the law will prevent whackos from getting their hands on assault type weapons and killing large numbers of people.

The fact that we make something illegal doesn't make it cease to happen.

Paul Pless
12-19-2012, 10:15 AM
I'm trusting my memory here, but I recall cases where the guy who killed people broke into locked security to access the guns. People die and who knows what the kids do with the guns.

This is another law that works like speed limits. Penalty comes after it is broken. Attention is brought when the crime has been committed and people are already dead.

If we get back to the car analogy, leaving guns accessable is a lot like leaving your car unlocked with the keys in it.

To be clear, I believe it is possible to make many gun owners more responsible, but those are not the ones I fear will kill people.

I don't think any form of controlling guns would have prevented last week's massacre. IMO, we cannot disarm society, and we cannot create a place where whackos cannot obtain guns. The window for such laws has passed.

John, per my original proposal: An existing gun owner would have one year to comply with the new regulation. Sure there'd be difficulty for authorities to know whether you complied or not. However, if you make the penalty for non-compliance severe, most people will conform. As far as compliance with safe storage, it could be accomplished in several ways, random audit of a registered gun owner's home is one way. Another way would be to put the onus on the insurance companies. Insurance companies that offer liability policies to gun owners will necessarily want to know that guns are being stored safely - they could certify that necessary steps have been taken before offering insurance.

Peach
12-19-2012, 10:17 AM
That's just it, the only proposals being offered inconvenience law abiding citizens, and do nothing to curb gun violence.

Then we need different proposals.


- how does what Paul proposed change the way you use firearms?

Not one bit. I would have to change out some hardware, but nothing about the way I use firearms would change.


Your constitution killed those kids.

Yes, it did. There are calls for changes to the Second Amendment, but for the heavily armed gun zealots any attempt to alter the Constitution would be a declaration of war. Concentrating on practical and attainable remedies is the way to move forward.

Paul Pless
12-19-2012, 10:19 AM
how does what Paul proposed change the way you use firearms?I would have to submit to Tier 2 licensing.

Canoez
12-19-2012, 10:40 AM
The way I use them? Not at all. They are registered and locked up. Im not fond of the idea of someone entering my home for the purpose of inspecting my storage methods, such searches with out suspision of violation and without a warrant would be uncontitutional IMHO. The reason for my statement was after Paul posted what many would consider "reasonable" regulations the immediate reactions were it was not enough. Without the NRA to temper such people, our gun rights would dissapear, again, IMHO. I do not like what the NRA has become, but it is all we have to defend our rights.

I guess that I don't see that a "safety check" for gun storage is that out of line - there would be strict limits that they could ONLY be looking for safe storage. Beyond that, I'd say that it was an unconstitutional search. How else do you verify that someone is living up to their legal requirement for safe storage in Paul's premise? We do it for other safety reasons including building permits, fuel storage, and other issues. In my state, if I wish to purchase and store blackpowder or pyrodex in my dwelling, I have to have a certificate from the fire department that is proceeded by an inspection.

Is it truly that onerous? Nobody is taking anything from you, they're only verifying that you meet what should be clearly described storage requirements.

One of the big worries that I have is folks who don't properly store their firearms and that they are stolen and used to commit crimes by people who shouldn't have firearms, so that's why I don't consider such a deliberately limited inspection to be unreasonable.

htom
12-19-2012, 10:58 AM
Paul's suggestions are fine as they go, but more needs to be done. Assault rifle ban died out, perhaps it simply was not in place long enough.

In a previous post I advocated making illegal any civilian possession of any gun-related accessory that should properly only be in the hands of the military or authorized law enforcement.

I am also coming around to the opinion that gun use in commission of a crime automatically qualifies for extra severe punishment for the perp, said costs to be paid from higher taxes on gun and gun related accessories.

Too bad SCOTUS outlawed state or local laws that could start to get a hold on the gun problem locally - you know, the old 'turn in your guns until you leave town' trope from the Old West.

Last I looked, the NFA '34 was still in effect, so the assault rifle ban stands. Oh, the assault weapon -- aka the "it looks like an evil black gun" ban. Well, like most forms of discrimination based on looks, it has passed on. Wasn't a good plan anyway, as character is more important than looks. (btw, the rifle used in the recent spree wasn't an "assault weapon" by either federal or Connecticut standards.)

I have no idea what you mean by "gun related accessory" that should only be in the hands of military or law enforcement.

Use of a firearm in a crime is already a crime. Strangely, it's rarely prosecuted.

Maybe we should have a tax on people who say ignorant things about firearms and firearms laws.

htom
12-19-2012, 11:06 AM
And that you intended to ban existing arms while claiming not to explains why some in the firearms community find trust in such proposals so difficult.

Caede
12-19-2012, 11:09 AM
(btw, the rifle used in the recent spree wasn't an "assault weapon" by either federal or Connecticut standards.)

I think this is part of the problem -- NRA pushback has made it so the rifle used in the killings was not an assault weapon. It seems fairly clear under a few measures that it was an assault weapon and should have been classified as such.

Had the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon ban still been in place, the weapon he used would have been properly considered an assault weapon under federal law. Nancy Lanza would not have owned it, since she appears to have been a law-abiding gun owner.

I do want to mention that the proposal from Paul in the OP seems like an excellent immediate start. It's sad that it could never pass, mostly due the immediate neutering it would get, like the one in this thread by htom who rapidly modified it so that the CT shooting weapon would be perfectly legal and accessible again.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
12-19-2012, 11:11 AM
I may have missed it but where is the ban on existing arms?

Semi-auto handguns and rifles with larger capacity magazines simply move to tier two - not a ban.

keyhavenpotterer
12-19-2012, 11:12 AM
Its unfortunate that American democracy is unable to manage this.


A simple idea for the purchase of new guns is to enforce and maintain the status quo by


Increase the age at which you can buy or hold a gun by one year annually.


Its a simple law to pass and politically and economically neutral:-


Nobody is unduely affected.

1. Those that hold guns already carry on as normal. These people are the group largely 'in charge' politically and economically. They still retain the right to 'bear arms', and keep their gun collections. Your constitution still stands, you have the right to bear arms, just the minimum age is adjusted.

2. Those that make guns, can continue to do so, seeing a gradual 1-2% reduction in sales over 60-70 years, which is manageable.

3. Those too young to have a gun, continue to not have a gun: they are too young next year as they are this year. They aren't going to miss something they never had. Nobody will have sympathy for 18year olds with placards demaning guns. They have no political power. Most don't want them. Punitive sentacing for anyone caught in this age group holding a gun (you do have a minimum age I take it?)

4. Police amnesty on talking guns in for destruction.


True, people will still get shot and kids will die at school, but it will phase out over 70 years as people age and die.

A similar approach can phase out smoking.

I realise its not ideal, but it might be workable and achieve transition to a society that at least can neither purchase or hold guns legally over 60-70 years with little affect on the status quo, so it may be achievable politically with the two bipolar groups and economics of the gun industry.

Ironically in the UK, we have less democracy than in the US: we elect a dictator every 4-5 years able to pass any law they wish. Not always ideal either, but it does allow unpopular but necessary laws to be passed at a stroke by just the man or women elected.

Ed

Paul Pless
12-19-2012, 11:15 AM
I may have missed it but where is the ban on existing arms?

Semi-auto handguns and rifles with larger capacity magazines simply move to tier two - not a ban.Correct. But we shouldn't minimize the thoroughness of current class iii licensing requirements, which is what I'm proposing for tier 2

john l
12-19-2012, 11:16 AM
Thanks Paul. Good thinking. I also like that a regulatory proposition is comming from a gun enthusiast. I believe they need to be leaders in a change and are very knowledgable on the subject. By contrast, donns comments seem to be exhubarant irrationality fueled by paranoia and possibly defensive manuerving if not flat out guilt. Everyone on all sides of the equation need to be objective and constructive. Things are not the way they used to be and in fact never were. We have problems and we need to reconcile them for the rights of all.

Caede
12-19-2012, 11:29 AM
Random musing: in Mississippi (for example) legislators have spent years trying to find ways to skirt banning abortion without outright passing an unconstitutional ban on abortion. So, here we have two concepts:
- Gun ownership is constitutional
- Abortion is constitutional

Many of the people complaining about trying to legislate guns into near-ban state are the same who are advocating legislating abortion into a near-ban state, and many people who complain about trying to ban abortion into a near-ban state are advocating legislating guns into a near-ban state.

...no point, just a random musing.

wardd
12-19-2012, 11:32 AM
So in the case of this nutjob - would his mothers' policy, had she had one, cover such an incident? Looking at the estimable payouts, that's one expensive policy. And of course

- no one to hold responsible.

if you cause an accident in which you are killed, does your insurance cover it anyway?

wardd
12-19-2012, 11:38 AM
another suggestion is that no one can acquire additional proscribed guns even through inheritance

PhaseLockedLoop
12-19-2012, 12:01 PM
Take away all permits to carry concealed weapons except for peace officers, and require transportation permits for taking handguns to the range.

Perhaps you don't understand that the past fifteen years have revolutionized laws regarding concealed carry. In most states it wasn't easy to get such a permit--usually limited to friends of cops or legislators, doctors and dentists. Nowadays most all states have shall-issue permitting. The momentum, as they say, is very much against you. Why does anyone think that there will be a change of heart now, after a horrific incident that had nothing whatever to do with concealed carry laws?

wardd
12-19-2012, 12:15 PM
Perhaps you don't understand that the past fifteen years have revolutionized laws regarding concealed carry. In most states it wasn't easy to get such a permit--usually limited to friends of cops or legislators, doctors and dentists. Nowadays most all states have shall-issue permitting. The momentum, as they say, is very much against you. Why does anyone think that there will be a change of heart now, after a horrific incident that had nothing whatever to do with concealed carry laws?

because the horrific event brings it all into focus

Dave Wright
12-19-2012, 12:26 PM
For various reasons, including social responsibility, I've gotten rid of all long guns except for one, an 1894 lever action carbine. Seems a shame that it will become a tier 2 item under the OP's proposal (10 shot tubular magazine).

Paul Pless
12-19-2012, 12:27 PM
Seems a shame that it will become a tier 2 item under the OP's proposal (10 shot tubular magazine).you could modify it to conform to tier one specs.

PhaseLockedLoop
12-19-2012, 12:34 PM
because the horrific event brings it all into focus

It brings a lot of horror, and it should. When it comes down to drafting a law, the same attitudes are going to surface. Maybe I'm wrong, and the paranoid style of gun ownership is something I'd be glad to see disappear. Unfortunately the paranoia of the whole country is out of sight. I'd like to see that end, too, but all the kids we kill abroad don't bleed, it seems.

Caede
12-19-2012, 12:38 PM
For various reasons, including social responsibility, I've gotten rid of all long guns except for one, an 1894 lever action carbine. Seems a shame that it will become a tier 2 item under the OP's proposal (10 shot tubular magazine).

Under the OP's proposal, how does this gun being a tier 2 item impact you? Do you object to the background check, the fact that local law enforcement would need to approve it (probably a quick approval in your case), or the potential storage audits? Do you feel any of these (or something I'm not thinking of) is an overly heavy burden on you as a consequence of owning this gun? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just unclear on what the downsides to legally owning a tier 2 gun would be.

Also, I'd think there might be a lot of room for a provision for 'historical' weapons that could get waivers from tier 2 requirements and be treated more as tier 1 weapons. I have this beautiful semi-automatic musket I'd hate to part with...

htom
12-19-2012, 01:35 PM
John, per my original proposal: An existing gun owner would have one year to comply with the new regulation. Sure there'd be difficulty for authorities to know whether you complied or not. However, if you make the penalty for non-compliance severe, most people will conform. As far as compliance with safe storage, it could be accomplished in several ways, random audit of a registered gun owner's home is one way. Another way would be to put the onus on the insurance companies. Insurance companies that offer liability policies to gun owners will necessarily want to know that guns are being stored safely - they could certify that necessary steps have been taken before offering insurance.

Knock, knock, knock. John, we've had reports that you're concealing unregistered firearms here that are not safely stored. Come and look, officers. Won't take long, we have a very definite place to look. :officers unfold the sleeper sofa, reach up inside, pulls out an AR-15 clone in a giant baggy: Busted. But that's not mine! Yet here it is. Cuff him. Whose is it? Not mine, I've never seen it before. There are no prints on the bag, Commander. Then there probably won't be any inside, either. Nice antique, looks great, see that bag of stabilizer in the corner? Put away by someone who cared about it, wanted to keep it in good condition. Take him downtown, the assault rifle to the lab. Bring the dog and see if you can find some ammo.

htom
12-19-2012, 01:43 PM
I think this is part of the problem -- NRA pushback has made it so the rifle used in the killings was not an assault weapon. It seems fairly clear under a few measures that it was an assault weapon and should have been classified as such.

Had the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon ban still been in place, the weapon he used would have been properly considered an assault weapon under federal law. Nancy Lanza would not have owned it, since she appears to have been a law-abiding gun owner.

I do want to mention that the proposal from Paul in the OP seems like an excellent immediate start. It's sad that it could never pass, mostly due the immediate neutering it would get, like the one in this thread by htom who rapidly modified it so that the CT shooting weapon would be perfectly legal and accessible again.

It's possible that Bushmaster changed their design so that it was now in violation of the '94 federal ban and you're the first person to notice that, but all I've read from both the pro- and anti- side is that it was not a '94 illegal and was not Connecticut illegal, because Connecticut's current state ban continued all of the ban features of the '94 federal ban. (Not the only state that does so.) First reports are often wrong, one of us is.

htom
12-19-2012, 01:46 PM
because the horrific event brings it all into focus

Rule 4. Be sure of your target, and what is above, below, beside, beyond, and through that target.

In shooting at concealed carry ... I think you've misidentified your target, like the fools who shoot cows thinking they are deer.

Dave Wright
12-19-2012, 01:54 PM
Under the OP's proposal, how does this gun being a tier 2 item impact you? Do you object to the background check, the fact that local law enforcement would need to approve it (probably a quick approval in your case), or the potential storage audits? Do you feel any of these (or something I'm not thinking of) is an overly heavy burden on you as a consequence of owning this gun? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just unclear on what the downsides to legally owning a tier 2 gun would be.

Also, I'd think there might be a lot of room for a provision for 'historical' weapons that could get waivers from tier 2 requirements and be treated more as tier 1 weapons. I have this beautiful semi-automatic musket I'd hate to part with...

I'd simply sell the rifle and be done with it.

But, let me continue in the same vein as my post on that particular lever action rifle: For various reasons, including social responsibility, I've gotten rid of all semi auto handguns. But I do have one center fire revolver which would become a tier two item under the OP's proposal. I'd simply sell this item too and be done with it.

My point is, that I have already, without compulsion, and in the interest of safety and sanity, limited myself to a lever action rifle and a revolver. Both are safely secured. The OP's proposal, as written would impact me but in no big way. It would impact others much more and they simply wouldn't accept it or stand for it.

I vote Democratic and I prefer a progressive government. I would still vote Democratic if the OP's proposal was implemented. However, given the reality of the U.S. as it currently exists, the OP's proposal would insure a defeat of the Democratic party and result in a Republican president and a Republican congress (along with a dismantling of the OP's proposal). I would then be faced with social and economic policies that are disagreeable to me across the board. You have to keep the total picture in perspective, no matter how horrific individual events may be.

McMike
12-19-2012, 06:30 PM
Response in bold.


Use the current federal background check system for all commercial and private sales of tier one firearms. Reinstate a waiting period of seven days for all such firearms purchases. Applicants for purchase of firearm should demonstrate passage of a firearm safety course (similar to most state's hunter safety course). All guns must be stored in certified locked gun vault or be fitted with a trigger lock which if removed illegally will render the gun unusable. Certificate of liability insurance, similar to auto liability insurance, must be current for all owners of tier one firearms.

Tier One firearms will include:


rimfire hand and long guns of any action type excepting full auto with a maximum capacity of ten rounds, plus one additional round in the chamber


Capacity limits don't work as has been stated by many gun rights advocates; you can now print, very cheaply, mods and components that will allow for extended mags which will circumnavigate any regs . . . until it's too late. The only thing that will cut down on damage caused by a firearm that falls in the wrong hands for certian is banning all semi-automatic firearms.



all action type of shotguns, excepting full auto with a maximum magazine capacity of five rounds, plus one additional round in the chamber


See above comment about semi-automatic firearms




all action type of centerfire rifles excepting full auto with a maximum capacity of five rounds, plus one additional round in the chamber


See above comment about semi-automatic firearms




single and double action revolver type centerfire handguns with a maximum capacity of six rounds in the cylinder, and a barrel length of more than 5˝"


See above comment about semi-automatic firearms and 80% of gun involved crimes are committed with handguns. As I stated in last year's long ass thread; my opinion is that handguns present no real positive balance to the ill they contribute to society.




certain special purpose handguns, either bolt or single shot, will be considered centerfire rifles for the purpose of regulation (by way of example, i am thinking of the remington xp100 and thompson contender types)



See above comment about handguns.




All semi-automatic handguns will be banned for sale as tier one guns.




Existing owners of tier one guns will have one year to comply with the Federal background check at no cost to themselves. If a current tier one gun owner wishes to surrender his weapon rather than comply, they may transfer the ownership of such a gun to any FFL dealer (I'm assuming a sale here) or the Federal government will buy back the weapon at fair market value as dtermined six months before this proposal becomes law.

All other weapons will be considered Tier 2 for licensing purposes. Ownership of Tier 2 weapons will fall under the current guidelines for Class III firearms, which include an extensive federal background check, approval of the head of local law enforcement agency, random audits of the safe storage of such firearms. Again for current owners of Tier 2 firearms, there will be no cost for application for permit in the first year after adoption of this law. Recognizing that some local law enforcement agencies currently do not approve any applications for Class III firearms, a special federal level appeals process will be put in place for any denials by local law enforcement. Other than the background check processing fee, there should be no exceptional cost to own more than one Tier 2 type firearm.

Of course the regulations for safe storage and firearms training for Tier 1 firearms also applies to Tier 2 firearms.

As stated before, there is no way to legally audit gun owners regarding their storage practices. Phillip and Htom themselves, presumably normal gun owners, would not comply. IMO, there is no more room for error, the gun crowd has had plenty of time to self regulate and they have failed. America is waking up for all the wrong reasons, we should have done this years ago. FWIW, CNN posted poll results that state clearly how America is shifting. Guns will not go away but they will be controlled.


This above proposal will not pre-empt any state or local laws or regulations for concealed or open carry or transport of guns in those jurisdictions.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
12-19-2012, 06:42 PM
For various reasons, including social responsibility, I've gotten rid of all long guns except for one, an 1894 lever action carbine. Seems a shame that it will become a tier 2 item under the OP's proposal (10 shot tubular magazine).

Two of the possible answers:
Modify the magazine so that it holds a maximum of five - sounds a simple enough change for a competent smith.
Allow a historic exception - we have an "Over 100 years rule."

Paul Pless
12-19-2012, 06:44 PM
Modify the magazine so that it holds a maximum of five - sounds a simple enough change for a competent smith.This is a common modification to make certain guns compliant with hunting regulations.

George Jung
12-19-2012, 06:54 PM
Plugs are used in shotguns - that possible for a tubular magazine (at least would 'appear' 'stock')

htom
12-19-2012, 07:44 PM
Plugs are not modifications for such purposes, because they can be removed. You'd have to weld it in.

I won't comply with the law? Why? It looks to me like I'm doing more compliance and obedience than the lot of you are proposing to do.

PhaseLockedLoop
12-20-2012, 01:47 PM
However, if you make the penalty for non-compliance severe, most people will conform.

Worked a treat with dope, didn't it? Non-negotiable sentencing has put 2.3 million people in prison as it is.

Paul Pless
12-20-2012, 01:56 PM
Worked a treat with dope, didn't it? Non-negotiable sentencing has put 2.3 million people in prison as it is.
Dope is far different than guns, and I'll tell you why, illegal drug use is and should be a treatable mental health issue, approached with compassion, with education and treatment available, rather than the ignorant criminalization that we pursue. Looking back its easy to understand and to excuse the origins of the war on drugs. Thirty years of failure later its time to move on towards a more effective strategy to deal with the problem.

David W Pratt
12-20-2012, 05:17 PM
Interesting suggestions, many are unconstitutional, but so what, it's just a piece of paper.
None address the fact that Vermont has very minimal gun laws and violence to match while Chicago and Washington DC have extremely strict gun laws and high levels of gun related Crime

Cuyahoga Chuck
12-20-2012, 05:34 PM
I recognize a clear need to address firearm related violence, including the illicit use of firearms in crime, domestic violence, political violence (assasinations), mass shootings, as well as suicides, accidents, and unauthorized use , ie by the mentally ill or by children.

I would like for those advocating stricter firearms regulation to recognize that the majority, by a very large margin, of all firearm owners and users, do so in a responsible and safe manner and in no way find gun violence to be acceptable or moral. As such, any new firearm restrictions should not be looked upon as being punitive towards current legal firearms owners, but rather as necessary to improve the safety of our society as a whole.

Having said that I propose the following tiered regulation system:

Use the current federal background check system for all commercial and private sales of tier one firearms. Reinstate a waiting period of seven days for all such firearms purchases. Applicants for purchase of firearm should demonstrate passage of a firearm safety course (similar to most state's hunter safety course). All guns must be stored in certified locked gun vault or be fitted with a trigger lock which if removed illegally will render the gun unusable. Certificate of liability insurance, similar to auto liability insurance, must be current for all owners of tier one firearms.

Tier One firearms will include:


rimfire hand and long guns of any action type excepting full auto with a maximum capacity of ten rounds, plus one additional round in the chamber
all action type of shotguns, excepting full auto with a maximum magazine capacity of five rounds, plus one additional round in the chamber
all action type of centerfire rifles excepting full auto with a maximum capacity of five rounds, plus one additional round in the chamber
single and double action revolver type centerfire handguns with a maximum capacity of six rounds in the cylinder, and a barrel length of more than 5˝"
certain special purpose handguns, either bolt or single shot, will be considered centerfire rifles for the purpose of regulation (by way of example, i am thinking of the remington xp100 and thompson contender types)
All semi-automatic handguns will be banned for sale as tier one guns.



Existing owners of tier one guns will have one year to comply with the Federal background check at no cost to themselves. If a current tier one gun owner wishes to surrender his weapon rather than comply, they may transfer the ownership of such a gun to any FFL dealer (I'm assuming a sale here) or the Federal government will buy back the weapon at fair market value as dtermined six months before this proposal becomes law.

All other weapons will be considered Tier 2 for licensing purposes. Ownership of Tier 2 weapons will fall under the current guidelines for Class III firearms, which include an extensive federal background check, approval of the head of local law enforcement agency, random audits of the safe storage of such firearms. Again for current owners of Tier 2 firearms, there will be no cost for application for permit in the first year after adoption of this law. Recognizing that some local law enforcement agencies currently do not approve any applications for Class III firearms, a special federal level appeals process will be put in place for any denials by local law enforcement. Other than the background check processing fee, there should be no exceptional cost to own more than one Tier 2 type firearm.

Of course the regulations for safe storage and firearms training for Tier 1 firearms also applies to Tier 2 firearms.

This above proposal will not pre-empt any state or local laws or regulations for concealed or open carry or transport of guns in those jurisdictions.

A lot more verbage than your usual. You must be in a sweat. You should be.
The anti-assult weapon folks are zeroing in on ANY firearm that can accept a magazine with more than FIVE (count 'em) FIVE rounds.
That should blow some steam up your kilt. No importation and no domestic sales. Sporting rifles only. Supposedly the ATF has the power to make such a determination but was thwarted during Cheney's presidency.
Time to light up that votive candle in front of Wayne LaPierre's picture.

Bob Adams
12-20-2012, 05:40 PM
A lot more verbage than your usual. You must be in a sweat. You should be.
The anti-assult weapon folks are zeroing in on ANY firearm that can accept a magazine with more than FIVE (count 'em) FIVE rounds.
That should blow some steam up your kilt. No importation and no domestic sales. Sporting rifles only. Supposedly the ATF has the power to make such a determination but was thwarted during Cheney's presidency.
Time to light up that votive candle in front of Wayne LaPierre's picture.

Getting a chubby there Chuck?

Paul Pless
12-20-2012, 05:45 PM
A lot more verbage than your usual. You must be in a sweat. You should be.
The anti-assult weapon folks are zeroing in on ANY firearm that can accept a magazine with more than FIVE (count 'em) FIVE rounds.
That should blow some steam up your kilt. No importation and no domestic sales. Sporting rifles only. Supposedly the ATF has the power to make such a determination but was thwarted during Cheney's presidency.
Time to light up that votive candle in front of Wayne LaPierre's picture.

I have never been a member of the NRA. My personal interest in firearms lies primarily with single shot falling block rifles, and Colt Single Action Army Pistols. No matter how severe any new firearms regulation might be enacted under this Congress and this President; I seriously doubt it would have any meaningful effect on me.

I offer this for your consideration on whether there will be any meaningful change as a result of the Newtown massacre: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/20/167720040/gun-control-only-modest-change-in-opinion-since-newtown-shootings

Caede
12-20-2012, 05:50 PM
Interesting suggestions, many are unconstitutional, but so what, it's just a piece of paper.
None address the fact that Vermont has very minimal gun laws and violence to match while Chicago and Washington DC have extremely strict gun laws and high levels of gun related Crime

What do you find unconstitutional in the OP proposal?

Sent from my SCH-I905 using Tapatalk 2

Bob Adams
12-20-2012, 05:57 PM
Interesting suggestions, many are unconstitutional, but so what, it's just a piece of paper.
None address the fact that Vermont has very minimal gun laws and violence to match while Chicago and Washington DC have extremely strict gun laws and high levels of gun related Crime

Here, I'll type slowly to make it easier to understand...
Drugs. Plenty around those parts. Drug dealers and their related gangs and thugs do not obey the strict gun laws. Next!

Portland
12-20-2012, 06:02 PM
Paul , the reality is that the American government can legislate within that polls finding , and make a big difference.
I'm sure you have read the Australian regulations .
When they came out I found it had absolutely no effect on me , except that I had to register my rifles , and get a licence.
For you , you would have no change in your core interest .
Fistly , the survey doesn't like assault rifles.
I'm assuming they mean semi auto's .
Do as was done here , make it extremely difficult to get semi auto's legally . If you can't show a need for a semi auto weapon that you own , then it is sold to the government , in a buy back scheme.
People can still get weapons legally , if they have a need , and pass the tests , just not semi auto's.
Rob J.

Cuyahoga Chuck
12-20-2012, 06:16 PM
I have never been a member of the NRA. My personal interest in firearms lies primarily with single shot falling block rifles, and Colt Single Action Army Pistols. No matter how severe any new firearms regulation might be enacted under this Congress and this President; I seriously doubt it would have any meaningful effect on me.

I offer this for your consideration on whether there will be any meaningful change as a result of the Newtown massacre: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/20/167720040/gun-control-only-modest-change-in-opinion-since-newtown-shootings

I almost choke on my oatmeal when I saw how many sentences you have strung together.
Thanks for you interest but you missjudged the situation. The anti-assault crowd has a distinct advantage right now and the only sensable tactic is a full court press. They have to demand the max. Try to drive Wayne La Pierre from the field. So negotiiations aren't part of the plan. If too much time elapses before a result is achieved there will be too many chances to water things down as was done in the past. LaPierre has scads of money contributed by the manufacturers and they will empty their vaults to keep from seeing their markets destroyed. The anti-gun crowd will never match them in dollars so it has to use popular sentiment and whatever power the president brings to keep the heat on.

keith66
12-20-2012, 06:21 PM
I have read through the many threads on this subject & so far refained from posting. We can all agree that the murder of the kids at Newtown is beyond comprehension & the result of this evil act is an issue that must be addressed.
I have been a shooting man since i was 13 when my Dad gave me an airgun for christmas. We graduated to shotguns & i am now Secretary of our local Wildfowling club. I have made lifelong friends & had some of the best times a man can have in the good company of fellow sportsmen.
Here in the Uk we have had a long history of firearms controls, It started just after WW1 when the Establishment feared a communist revolution this resulted in the first firearms act of 1922, since then more controls have been added heaped one upon the other.
In 1987 we had the Hungerford massacre, this resulted in the firearms amendment act 1988 when all semi auto rifles above .22Lr were banned, Semi auto shotguns were limited to 2 in the mag plus one in the chamber. Here we have a two tier system where rifles & handguns were section 1 & shotguns were Section 2.
When the Dunblane atrocity happened the pressure on the politicians was so great with an election imminent that knee jerk legislation was passed banning handguns altogether except for muzzleloaders.
This resulted in many thousands of pistol shooters having to hand their pistols in.
Did it stop gun crime? No.
With the law abiding shooting men having handed their guns in it was estimated that the same number of illegal weapons flooded into the country from the old eastern bloc within a few short months. All destined for the low lifes in the drug & crime trade.
Here in the UK guns are very tightly controlled but still we get the occasional nut case as happened in Cumbria last year. It shows that you cannot legislate against someone flipping over the edge.
Personally i'm inclined to favour the Swiss model of firearms ownership, all citizens armed but with the training, discipline, restraint & respect for the system made mandatory.
Here it wouldnt work as our population is now too far removed from the concept for it to be politically acceptable.
Point i am making is that you guys in the USA may find yourselves having to make concessions re firearms controls, best be careful what you wish for.
If you are going to enact controls best get them right & not in a kneejerk fashion like happened here.