Gun Owners Only! "Reasonable Gun Law Reform" survey

I made this to see what the gun community's thoughts are on some of these proposals. This is obviously not a comprehensive list, but it gets a conversation started (and I'm willing to be its not a "vast majority" of gun owners agreeing on things as Pres. Obama suggests). Anyway, what do you guys think of this?



For me: 1, 14, and 21.

1: It makes sense to me. If a licensed psychological panel (not individual) agrees (as in, Timmy got committed for idealizations of mass murder, maybe we should think about that), the person could be flagged as a risk; warranting a mandatory waiting period, denial, or even LEO notification/ investigation upon trying to purchase a gun.

14. My valid driver's license allows me drive a car in any state, and some foreign countries. Since the 2nd Amendment affects everyone in the nation, it should affect them all equally. A standardized training and/or licensing course w/ periodic renewals makes sense. It would also allow you to own, purchase, and operate any type of weapon valid for that license immediately upon proof of license; similarly to how a standard vehicle license allows for cars, but not big rigs, etc.

That being said, if I have the license, I want to be able to go to Ohio, New York, Illinois, etc with my firearm for whatever legal purpose I may wish; whether that be to buy, sell, shoot, or trade with any other licensed owner/ operator.

21.: This applies to what are known as select-fire weapons (that's automatic for non-firearms types). If Law Enforcement officers such as SWAT can own and operate true military grade weaponry, then so should any other CIVILIAN, provided they are equally trained, checked, and proficient. This may scare people, and it should. The "standards" for LEOs to gain access to this, and often use it against unarmed people; is very disconcerting. This would force LEOs to have higher quality training and responsibility.

Afterthought: Nothing in my proposals involves limiting firearms (expands actually. I'd like a Krinkov in burst fire for under $3000, Alex), only those who can access them. It expands where a valid Concealed Carry License owner could carry (everywhere) and bans nothing.

Thoughts? Scores?

 

1. Don't they already check major items like if you've been admitted to a mental institution or are chemically dependent on anti-psychotic drugs and deemed mentally unstable or something? Id be for stronger background checks but it seems tricky with doctor/patient confidentiality. The drs should be able to flag patients if they talk about using guns for violence which can deter them from purchasing guns down the road.

Just like some states have child gun safety laws which require firearms to be locked up in households with people 17 years old and younger they should add something in there for people in a house who have certain mental health conditions regardless of age.

 

If it makes them happy id be ok trying no more than 20 rounds on rifles and 15 rounds for handguns for a while.

10, 11, 12, 13 = no

14. Id be ok with a mandatory gun safety courses with proficiency tests to own. Concealed carry permits should stay left up to the states how they want to issue those imo.

 

14 just means the government knows exactly who to go to if they want to round up the guns.

 

I know a guy who bought an AR 15 w/ 1000 rounds of ammo and a 1911 WITH the money he got from the government for being officially mentally unstable enough to be on disability for fantasizing about killing his boss. No, they don't check.

 

Well id be ok with checking that sort of thing definitely.

 

I agree with the testing. Here in Canada you have to pass a written and practical exam with at least an 80% mark. And you go through a background check before they issue the licence. we already have limitations on mag cap. (10 for handguns, 5 for centerfire rifles, unlimited for rimfire rifles)

I don't think full auto rifles should be available for the general public. Someone willing to break the law would have better access to that type of weapon. But then again if you are willing to break the law you can probably get any type of firearm you want. What would Average Joe American need a full auto rifle for anyways? Just my 2 cents.

 

None of the above.

As for #1, that violates federal HIPPA laws (health info privacy) and is a pretty extreme violation of rights.

I would say if your going to do background checks, denials for charges of violent behaviors would be much more appropriate.

Most "crazy" people aren't violent. More importantly, just about anyone can be determined to be "crazy," at least according to the DSM...

 

Enforcement of the giant heap of current laws that are on the books, against criminals (because they aren't)


/thread

 

Remember, I didn't come up with these, just compiled them. Since I know a guy personally that shouldn't be NEAR a gun due to his crazy, I'm sure that influenced my decision on #1.

 

The ban doesn't do anything but make stupid people think they are safer because scary looking guns are harder to get.

what's the difference between 1 30rd mag and 3 10rd mags about 20 seconds if your slow

Fun fact the worst shooting massacre to happen didn't involve an assault rifle and he didn't have high capacity mags. he had LOTS of mags for his two pistols. Virgina Tech if you didn't already know.

The current gun laws are perfectly fine.

 

So, none of the above. Gotcha. Most gun owners already know this. This isn't a thread about that. Thanks for contributing. And if you are even moderately decent a mag changes, it should take far less than 20 seconds, more like 6.

 

#1. That's it. And enforce what we already have.


Also, police officers with select fire do not own them. They are owned by the department and requisitioned to the officer. If the officer leaves the department, they give back the rifle.

 

1. In some version.
14. Needs to happen.
21.

 

What's the thing with banning pistol grips and collapsible stocks?

 

Don't forget those scary barrel shrouds

 

#1 and #21

 

I really, really like the idea of #21.

 

As far as #21, what about having it checked up on by a Class III dealer? We currently have a tax stamp system for NFA items that is one time, $200. Make it cheaper and yearly, say $20 or whatever the cost of a background check is for you locally. The dealer calls it in to verify you are still in possession. Sounds like a hassle, but it'd keep you honest and allow you to own a newly manufactured select fire weapon instead of the same pre 1986 ones circulating right now. If you are late, you get pinged. Three pings, Class III license revoked.
Alternatively, take an "armory" approach and allow access to newly manufactured select fire firearms with the stipulation they are stored at a Class III dealer or secure gun range and not a wooden and glass cabinet you got from your grandpa. If you are a competitive shooter, just sign for it when you go to your range. You can sign them in and out for, say, a week at a time for shooting on private property. If your personal household has a safe and security systems that pass muster for a Class III armory, only then can you store it at your house.

 

1 and 21 for sure.


I don't like 14. License to own should NEVER happen. That in fact would be in direct violation of the 10th amendment.

It would be nice to have a national license to carry but that is also a violation of the 10th.

State issued license to carry that has reciprocity in all states (like a drivers license) would be great.