Gun Owners Only! "Reasonable Gun Law Reform" survey

[TheFirstEMP]

I live in CA, 1 and 2 already apply. The rest would make zero difference.

 

[WorldofWarcraft]

I don't want any more gun control. Absolutely none. If the chances of me getting shot in a mass shooting is higher than getting hit by lightning, then I'll be up for some changes. Until then, no changes.

 

[Lord of Lies]

None. Too many laws already that infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

Number 14? That's the point of rights, you don't need a license, approval, etc. from the government. How would you even agree to that?

 

[Roaming East]

require firearm insurance. my car needs to be insured. so should my weapons.

 

[Protectandserve]

Discussed this with a friend and I think 1 is a good idea. If you've been 5150'd you shouldn't be able to purchase a firearm. I think NRA should have pushed 1, allowed for all firearms transaction to require a background check and mandated 10 year sentencing for gun crimes.

 

[SMEAC]

All you in favor of 21 do realize that was the kind of stuff used to keep firearms from minorities and poor people historically?

 

[SummerStriker]

I'm not a gun owner, but I wanted to comment on the 10 year sentencing.

I don't believe that the severity of punishment or mandatory terms of imprisonment have much barring on criminal activity.

I think that my life would be equally destroyed by 1 year in jail as 5 years in jail, but virtually no prize is worth any time in jail so I'm not inclined to commit any activity for which I think I could be caught or punished (if I were inclined at all).

For someone who just doesn't give a fuck, 1 year or 5 years or 10 years are all equally meaningless. The only reason to give someone a longer term isn't to punish them, but to remove them from society for a given period of time so that they are out of the way - but however long you put them in you probably get them back worse. Someone that shoots a family member in a fit of rage over a betrayal is probably not going to do it again and it isn't really useful to get rid of them, where as someone who mugs people on friday nights for their beer money is a real nuisance, is only ever a step away from inflicting injury on strangers, and might as well be shot.

I don't agree with punishment being simple revenge or an eye for an eye. I think it needs to serve a purpose and written law has a hard time with purpose, which is why judges should have a lot of leeway with sentencing in my opinion.

 

[finnegan]

Alright, so it seems that the majority are okay with background checks including a check for mental health. To keep with HIPPA, the gun store employee couldn't know why it was delayed, denied, etc; just that it was.

Seems about half are for 14 as far as national reciprocity for carry, but do not want a license to own. I agree with this. State issued licenses with national reciprocity sounds very reasonable, and I live in a "shall issue" state with no required training for concealed carry.

21, in some form, seems to be surprisingly popular.

Quite a few want no new regulations. This is understandable as well, esp since the current system prevented the most recent fuckhead mass murderer from just outright buying the weapons he wanted to to commit his crimes, and he had to kill a family member to acquire them.

Also, I just realized I didn't include anything for 17. Oops.

This is good stuff. Thanks for the participation thus far. And if you aren't a gun owner but wish to comment, please do so but identify as a non-owner so it doesn't skew the discussion.

 

[Lord of Lies]

And 1 is a slippery slope. What's to stop the government from labeling large numbers of the population as "mentally unstable" and therefore banned from owning firearms?

If the British had this policy before the Revolution they would have said anyone fighting against them for freedom was mentally unstable.

This is what happens when you start to try and put restrictions on rights. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear.

 

[jclaudevandamme]

1 and 14 are a no brainer. Only a true murrican-mah-fredum would disagree with them.

15 and 16 are unecessary, only 14 is necessary.

20 and 21 are a yes. 20 only in test format for me though. You can learn by yourself.

 

[wvboy]

#1 would be great but I'm not sure how that would stop someone with no documented history of mental instability from owning a gun. If a person has doctor reviewed mental issues then I am all for them not owning a gun. I'm sure there are a host of medical privacy issues that may come into play with this as well.

#2-6 No.

#7 I'm not sure what someone considers aftermarket. Don't most gun manufacturers make large capacity magazines right now?

#8-13 No.

#14 I wouldn't mind this. Anything that increases the gun skills of the population seems good to me. A modified version of a hunters safety course would be sufficient.

#16 and 17 No.

#20 I don't know what gun training law enforcement has to go through so I'll pass on this one.

#21 While I would love that to happen I highly doubt the government would allow for easier access to automatic guns. Of course that assumes that the course would do away with the licensing and therefore lower the price of automatic guns. I like Finnegans #19 post as well. It seems like a good proposal.

The main thing to remember is that none of these proposals would stop what happened in Connecticut from happening. No law can stop or prevent a person from committing a horrible act if they choose to. So I guess the only answer would be none of the above.

 

[jlagman]

All you in favor of 21 do realize that was the kind of stuff used to keep firearms from minorities and poor people historically?

You mean with regards to training requirements?

 

[Grrrr]

1 and 14 are a no brainer. Only a true murrican-mah-fredum would disagree with them.

15 and 16 are unecessary, only 14 is necessary.

20 and 21 are a yes. 20 only in test format for me though. You can learn by yourself.

14 is by no means necessary. Using "merrican-mah-fredum" as a way to trash someone elses opinion makes you come across as ignorant.

 

[Lord of Lies]

Take your BS to the war room. Someone who knows what the Bill of Rights are would disagree with them.

1 and 14 are a no brainer. Only a true murrican-mah-fredum would disagree with them.

15 and 16 are unecessary, only 14 is necessary.

20 and 21 are a yes. 20 only in test format for me though. You can learn by yourself.

 

[finnegan]

This was posted on another site. Interesting to see how different states treat firearm possession and mental illness.

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

 

[hunto]

None of the above. I get the mental health check, but it lets whatever agency arbitrarily define or set standards for acceptable mental health. What criteria decide a person's mental health disqualify them from gun ownership? Does a 3 month stint on a common anti-depressant like Prozac 10 years ago mean he can't exercise his 2nd amendment rights? Just putting people in front of someone to judge their mental health and suitability to own firearms is unsettling.
I get that we don't want violently crazy people owning guns. I get it, I do. But I don't think we can legislate all our problems away. I also think that the bigger question here, which will of course get avoided by the powers that be, is, WHY do people feel the need to kill so many innocent people in the course of a crime? I can kind of get a kid killing his parents for (not enough attention, abuse, etc), but I can't get them going and killing 20 other people who had nothing to do with it. That needs to be examined, in my opinion.
And, I think one other question needs to be examined: why did this kid not get mental help? He was from an affluent family, and those people are reluctant to get their kid help because of the stigma attached to it, they don't want the kid labeled. So they go on in denial, he's fine, even though every neighbor knows better. So why does the stigma prevent parents from getting their kid help?

 

[finnegan]

Most states have some form of this already.
Connecticut:
a person may not obtain a handgun eligibility certificate if he or she:
Has been discharged from custody within the preceding twenty years after having been found not guilty of a crime due to mental disease or defect pursuant to section 53a-13;
Has been confined in a mental hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities within the preceding 12 months by order of a probate court.

Colorado:
None listed

Arizona:
Arizona prohibits possession of a firearm by any person who:
Has been found to constitute a danger to himself or herself or others pursuant to court order under section 36-540, and whose right to possess a firearm has not been restored pursuant to section 13-925.

Virginia:
Prohibits the:
Purchase, possession or transportation of any firearm by any person adjudicated "legally incompetent," "mentally incapacitated," or "incapacitated," whose competency or capacity has not been restored
Purchase, possession or transportation of a firearm by a person who has been involuntarily committed, during the period of commitment

And surprisingly, check out Texas:
A person is ineligible for a license to carry a concealed weapon if the person:
(1) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or condition that causes or is likely to cause substantial impairment in judgment, mood, perception, impulse control, or intellectual ability;
(2) suffers from a psychiatric disorder or condition described by Subdivision (1) that: (A) is in remission but is reasonably likely to redevelop at a future time; or (B) requires continuous medical treatment to avoid redevelopment;
(3) has been diagnosed by a licensed physician, determined by a review board or similar authority, or declared by a court to be incompetent to manage the person's own affairs; or
(4) has entered in a criminal proceeding a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.

The following constitutes evidence that a person has a psychiatric disorder or condition described by section (1), above:
(1) involuntary psychiatric hospitalization;
(2) psychiatric hospitalization;
(3) inpatient or residential substance abuse treatment in the preceding five-year period;
(4) diagnosis in the preceding five-year period by a licensed physician that the person is dependent on alcohol, a controlled substance, or a similar substance; or
(5) diagnosis at any time by a licensed physician that the person suffers or has suffered from a psychiatric disorder or condition consisting of or relating to:
(A) schizophrenia or delusional disorder;
(B) bipolar disorder;
(C) chronic dementia, whether caused by illness, brain defect, or brain injury;
(D) dissociative identity disorder;
(E) intermittent explosive disorder; or
(F) antisocial personality disorder.

 

[finnegan]

The other thing that people are forgetting is that the current system did work in preventing him buying a rifle (which also indicates his mother probably wasn't intended to be the first victim; but was out of necessity for him to acquire weapons).

 

[Fury]

Most states have some form of this already.
Connecticut:
a person may not obtain a handgun eligibility certificate if he or she:
Has been discharged from custody within the preceding twenty years after having been found not guilty of a crime due to mental disease or defect pursuant to section 53a-13;
Has been confined in a mental hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities within the preceding 12 months by order of a probate court.

CT is strict because there is only 1 permit for handguns. You need it to either purchase or carry. So the CCW requirements basically apply to being able to purchase them.

Whether or not I agree with the specific criteria, I like the approach. You are either a person who qualifies or not. The no permit to buy but a permit to carry is weird to me. Either you are a person who has done something to restrict their rights or you should have full rights.

 

[hunto]

I think kneejerk legislation is a big mistake. This is how the first AWB came about, after the '89 Stockton CA schoolyard shooting. Hue and cry, laws were passed, and oh looky! they didn't even ban the gun that was used in the crime, an SKS. They did ban the steel core ammo that was used, ammo which resulted in a 90+% survival rate- out of 34 kids and one teacher shot, 5 kids died. What was the mortality rate in this recent Newtown shooting?

The idea that passing a law solves a problem is ludicrous (but I'm not surprised, given a population that doesn't mind being on surveillance camera everywhere). The problems are, why did the kid have to kill so many people, and why did the parents refuse to get him help?

edit to add:

As callous as its going to sound, living in a free country means that these things are going to happen. The same free society that allows a person to open a business if he can afford it, or send his kid to college, or own a nice home, also allows the freedom to buy a gun and kill 38 people. It doesn't make it right, but it is a symptom of a free society, and every law we make to stop those kinds of acts makes us all less free as a society.