I'm going to try starting a conversation about what "responsible" gun laws should look like...

[cherokeeprogressive]

I'm a gun owner. I'm both a legacy gun owner and a legal purchaser. I came to own a number of long guns because they were passed down from Grandfather to Father to me. Three handguns I purchased through perfectly legal means; those being purchases of new handguns which required participation in gun safety courses and background checks in the State of California.

I'm going to lay out what I think are "responsible gun laws", and I welcome responses from those who either feel I've not gone far enough, and those who think I've gone too far.

I favor a type of "gun registry" which identifies existing guns by their type, serial number, and claim of ownership. I would exempt certain pieces of information pertaining to those who claim ownership such as address, phone number, etc. Register your gun using your name and fingerprints, the type and caliber of gun, and its serial number only. No other information should be necessary. Should your gun be used in a crime, it can be traced back to you. Whether it's been stolen or transferred is up to you to prove by reporting said theft or transfer. If it hasn't been reported stolen or transferred, you should be liable in some way for whatever crime it was used to commit.

No convicted felon should ever be allowed to possess a gun. They've proven their unworthiness and their propensity for breaking the law.

Every transfer of a gun of any type should be recorded and a background check should be performed regardless of whether it is a commercial sale, private sale, or private transfer between family members. No transfer of any gun should be allowed between two individuals without a background check. EVER.

Safe storage of guns should be mandatory, whether that storage be containment in a safe of some type, or trigger locks, or biometric locks of one kind or another. This doesn't need to be enforced by any kind of inspection or infringement of anyone's Constitutional protections. It can be enforced by penalties. Leave your gun unlocked and unattended or otherwise stored in an irresponsible manner and have someone killed by accident with it or during the commission of a crime? Get charged as if you held the gun yourself and pulled the trigger in anger.

I favor restrictions on magazine sizes. I have a 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun which holds 2 rounds with one in the chamber. It doesn't have a removable magazine. If I can't hit the duck or pheasant or clay pigeon I'm shooting at with three rounds as fast as I can pull the trigger, the duck, pheasant or clay pigeon should go free. If I can't defend my living room with three rounds as fast as I can pull the trigger from the idiot who's trying to break down the door, woe is me. My 30.06 doesn't have a removable magazine either. It's been a lifetime since it's been out of the gun case but I believe it holds 3+1. I'm fine with that. I have a lever action 30-30 as well but it's been even longer since I've fired it. I'll go as far to say that I'm fine with long guns THAT DON'T HAVE REMOVABLE MAGAZINES, period. Don't like that? Tough. Learn to practice at the range 3-4 rounds at a time. Adjust your competitions to compensate.

Handguns? 10 rounds, single-stacked. No ups, no extras. That means you've got 11 rounds. Learn to be effective with 11 rounds.

Tell me where any of the things I've proposed would make me an "irresponsible gun owner", or where they might infringe on the INDIVIDUAL right (and I believe it IS an individual right) to possess a firearm.

I'm not a member of the NRA. I've never given them a dime either in magazine subscriptions or flat out contributions. I don't believe in lots of things they promote. I'm simply a person who believes the Second Amendment is a guarantee that the US Government will not infringe on my INDIVIDUAL right to own firearms for either hunting purposes or self-defense purposes, and I'm tired of being called a gun-humper because of what I believe.

Ready to talk? I am, and I've provided a platform that everyone can use. Agree or disagree. Add or subtract.

For what it's worth, this will be my last post in GD concerning guns. Each and every post about guns, gun violence, or anything else I'll trash.

I still love DU and respect most of the opinions I read here, but there's been a dearth of realistic opinions and a landslide of name-calling and/or recriminations. It's time for that to stop.

[Electric Monk]

1. That seems like a very reasonable compromise on the rkba issue. I'm happy to be the first k&r.

Mandatory background checks and limits on magazine sizes are a very good idea, imho.

I suspect people who are dead set against background checks are like that because they know they'd probably fail.

[cherokeeprogressive]

4. I'm sure there is some measure of people who are afraid they'd fail the background check.

Let them oppose it. If they fail they fail.

I'm all about three things: Making those with an irrational fear of my guns feel safer... Lessening deaths and injuries due to gun violence/accidents... and protecting an individual right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

I think there is a "happy medium". Whether or not others believe the same remains to be seen.

Agree to responsible gun laws, or keep arguing for things that aren't possible.

[Recursion]

21. It bans every rifle designed in the past century or so

That's a hard sell for a lot of people

[Electric Monk]

61. Couldn't they be retrofitted to comply? Think of all the gunsmiths it'd provide extra jobs for. nt

[Recursion]

62. I'm all for stimulus funds

But still, that will be difficult to make the case for.

[graham4anything]

2. I will assume you agree NO to national reciprocity like the Cronyn amendment or

in lieu, it will be based on NYC law.

Responsible gun laws?

a gun in a trophy case on the wall next to the last deer that was killed, and a nation
free of all bullets.

that would be responsible.

One can have their guns. Just NO bullets.

[cherokeeprogressive]

8. Every time you make the "no bullets" argument, I have to laugh...

It's ten thousand times easier to make a bullet than it is to make the barrel of a gun.

What's your opinion of "spud guns"? Ban their manufacture? Or simply ban the growing of potatoes?

[graham4anything]

13. I note you didn't answer about the Cornyn amendment

Last edited Sun May 5, 2013, 05:57 AM - Edit history (1)

which is the prize found at the bottom of the NRA cracker jack box they are selling.

[Ghost in the Machine]

30. Maybe no one knows who or what the "Cronyn amendment" (sic) is?? If you are going to stand up,

either for or against something, you should at least be able to spell it correctly. At least you'd come off as more knowledgeable about that which you speak of, and people would take you more seriously.

Yeah, I can be a spelling Nazi sometimes... but I'm just sayin'...

Ghost

[graham4anything]

32. it's the prize found in the bottom of the cracker jack box, that says the NRA got what it wants

and the old NRA trick is to worry about the size

size don't matter, it's what is done with it and how you use it that counts.

One vote and it's over for the gunnies. Just one little bitty vote.

[graham4anything]

51. name calling, as I am Jewish, I have heard it before.

most people know Graham stands for Bob Graham, a decent human being who is a populist who I wanted for any position in the government.

Instead of the fraud that Edwards was but of course, the Chuckie brigade said Bob was too ugly, too old, too anything but their hero in 2004 for the VP.

what could of been.

[DeadEyeDyck]

3. sounds like everyone is supposed to like

what you like.
And a criminal that has done his time is never to have his constitutional rights restored!? Can they ever vote?
You are quite sure how many rounds it takes for a person to hit a target.

[cherokeeprogressive]

6. I didn't say anything about voting.

I'm not "quite sure" about anything. I'm not even "quite sure" I'll wake up in the morning.

Maybe you should read a little slower. I left the door for disagreement WIDE OPEN.

Got a better idea? Are you capable of voicing it? I'm all eyes...

[Skittles]

7. gun humper logic

ignore it

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. If only you'd schedule this one for an...

Well, you know.

[Skittles]

16. alas, it doesn't work

their irrational fear takes all the fun out of it

[cherokeeprogressive]

19. Touche...

I knew you would if it were at all possible.

I have big faith in you.

[jazzimov]

5. Sounds reasonable to me!

I really liked this part:

" If I can't hit the duck or pheasant or clay pigeon I'm shooting at with three rounds as fast as I can pull the trigger, the duck, pheasant or clay pigeon should go free. "

So true.

"Safe storage of guns should be mandatory, whether that storage be containment in a safe of some type, or trigger locks, or biometric locks of one kind or another. This doesn't need to be enforced by any kind of inspection or infringement of anyone's Constitutional protections. It can be enforced by penalties. Leave your gun unlocked and unattended or otherwise stored in an irresponsible manner and have someone killed by accident with it or during the commission of a crime? Get charged as if you held the gun yourself and pulled the trigger in anger." Although biometric locks seem to have a long way to go, the mandatory safe storage with "Get charged as if you held the gun yourself and pulled the trigger in anger" seems perfectly reasonable to me.


I wish more were like you.

[graham4anything]

10. how can it be enforced BEFORE someone is killed or hurt?

this won't stop one single extremist going on a thrill kill mass murder spree like the columbine kids or the perps in Boston joy ride shooting at the police

how will it prevent anything?

What about the reciprocity amendment?

[cherokeeprogressive]

11. How do you enforce DUI laws before subjecting a driver to a breathalizer test?

How do you enforce Breaking and Entering laws BEFORE a business or residence is burglarized?

[graham4anything]

12. All automobiles are registered and have a national registry.

and why do gun owners NOT want to advertise that there is a gun in their home,
when ALL OTHER PREVENTIVE FORMS TO STOP ROBBERIES are fully advertised with alarms and neon signs all over telling the robber to go elsewhere

why?
oh yeah, it's not for protection
and if it's not for protection, what is it for?

the constitution does NOT say one can overthrow a government.

Why do pro-gun people resort to bringing other things in to the picture?
btw, a car owner IS NOT reponsible for someone who drives drunk who is not the owner.
Therefore, you fail at your own argument here.

BTW-let's assume your plan in place- you do agree then that 100% of all guns should be marked, registered and be specific to the one person who buys it right?

Have you thought your plan through? I think not.

Only reasonable gun control is to not have any guns and bullets

and make it zero tolerance for anyone in any street anywhere to have a gun, with the max penalty for anyone breaking it who is not on duty law enforcement.

How would the mass murderer in the conn. school have been stopped, and what good would retroactive penalty against his now dead mother who owned his guns have done?

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. Is this a Ceasar Word Salad, a House Word Salad, or a Wedge Word Salad?

It's a word salad, no matter what lettuce OR dressing you prefer...

Advertise that there is a gun in my home you say. Why? Should I also advertise the safe in my home that contains emergency cash, deeds, and pink slips? If not, why not?

The Constitution DOES say that the Government WILL NOT infringe on my right to own a firearm.

The paragraph about the car is WILTED word salad. NO ONE drives my car other than me, unless they've stolen it.

Are you fucking high? Did you NOT read my idea about registering guns?

How would the mass murder of passengers in a car involved in a head-on collision because a drunk driver entered the 210 Freeway in the wrong direction be prevented?

You're either high or delusional... you cannot penalize a dead mother for the actions of her son. You cannot penalize the dead drunk driver for the other lives he or she takes in an accident.

A world without bullets is an impossibility. A world without Meek Mike is only a few decades away at best. You get that, right?

[graham4anything]

20. your true colors show. I note again you did not say anything about the NRA pet project-recirpocity

the hidden NRA prize package in that box of crackerjacks the NRA people are selling when they say they want common sense packages.

Most families have ONE car driven by the entire driving age family.
Only the driver is charged in an accident.

only the owner is charged for a speeding ticket

therefore, your own argument has been rendered failed as you compare it to an automobile, when the automobile does not have it.

BTW-even in your rebuttal, if someone steals a car and causes death, you would then go to jail for murder or the death penalty if that state has it, correct? That is what you have said.
Yet you say that doesn't happen. Which do you want? DO you want to be charged if someone uses your car and kills someone, with first degree murder in a state that has the death penalty?

So, are you are saying-all gun owners in red states with death penalities will get the death penalty if that is the charge the perp will get, correct, no matter which state the perp commits the crime in, corrrect???

what is wordsalad the NRA soundbyte of the day? It's quite quaint when the same phrases word for word are repeated by all the people who are pro-gun on this board.


A world without guns/bullets is only ONE vote away. Just ONE.
It will happen sometime during the 2 terms of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Women will see to it. Women don't like guns 'tis said.
Women have the power to change the nation and I trust that they will.
It will be about time.

but your argument above and originally, is quite interesting in what is not overtly being said,
but what covertly is. Very telling indeed.

Which state is it?

[cherokeeprogressive]

25. You know, sometimes I'm not even sure we speak the same language.

Only the OWNER of a car is charged with a speeding ticket? What fucking state do you live in and have you EVER driven a car??

[graham4anything]

28. I note you made no mention of reciprocity, but focus on minutia. So so so telling

NYC gives speeding tickets solely to owners if they are caught speeding or going through red lights (whcih are timed so one knows the speed).
Tickets come in the mail and the owner's record is charged.
Not the driver, as cameras cannot tell who is driviing, only the owner.

Same with going through a toll booth without paying. Owner is flagged, not the driver.

NYC is the greatest city in the world.
And I am sure, those who want good common sense gun control would agree that if reciprocity came to be, the standard will be NYC, correct?

And, anyone who speeds deserves to get caught. I always applaud on the highway in red states when a speeder is caught. Makes my day. Guns and speed kills.

So you agree, if someone is using your car and kills someone and gets the death penalty,
the owner should too, is that correct?
That is what you say in the OP you know.

[Jenoch]

53. A few years ago Minneapolis installed cameras

to take photos of cars going through red lights. Someone sued for lack of due process and won. Any new 'photo-cop' system has to take a picture of the driver's face as well.

[Recursion]

35. You don't live somewhere with speeding/red light cameras, do you?

The ticket goes to the owner, period.

[cherokeeprogressive]

71. Red light cams. Never seen a speeding cam.

I'll say this though... no LEO writes a ticket to the owner rather than the driver after stopping them for a moving violation. At least I've never seen it happen in CA.

[graham4anything]

94. California has something I wish NYC could have

California in the north, has at the California border, a border patrol, and they stop everyone looking for bad produce.
Wish NYC had that and was able to check every vehicle entering Manhattan for weapons of any kind like California does, or better machines, that could electronically know any weapon in any vehicle, or on any person.

After all, that security is the same to me, as the gun/bullet is to you.
Otherwise, except for overthrowing something, what other reason is there for these guns/bullets?

Any other reason has long been debunked.

If all people are equal, then why does a miniscule # of gun owners trump everyone else?
and if they use their guns as security, then why do they hide them?
All people who have alarms advertise them.
Why don't gun owners want someone to move along and go to next place knowing there is a gun in the home?

That minor piece of answer, shows why NO gun/bullet is needed.

[Jenoch]

55. "Most families have ONE car driven by the entire driving age family."

That is quite possibly the silliest statement I have ever read in one of your posts.

Do you EVER get out of NYC?

[madinmaryland]

92. I think you are due beer and travel money and many experiences. nt

[Jenoch]

54. Tell us more about this

national car registry. I've owned many cars and I have never entered any of them in a national registry.

[graham4anything]

57. computers can get info nationwide. That is why now a ticket in Fl. costs & points on NJ insurance

in the old days, once out of NY or NJ, there was no problem with a ticket.
You paid the fine and got there.
Now it costs money on your insurance and they could take away your liscence with too many

[Jenoch]

60. I didn't ask about tickes and fines.

I asked about a national database. You just described state databases. It my seem like minutiae, but you cannot seem to get even the little details correct.

[treestar]

69. It can make the gun owner more careful

knowing he could be liable. It would have had Nancy Lanza guilty at least of something had she not been shot.

[jazzimov]

79. EXACTLY. Behaviour modification.

It would force the gun owner to be more responsible, and to actually USE the safety precautions that are required. No system is perfect, but I think this is a much better idea than the alternatives.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

14. I believe serial numbers should be like vin numbers on cars....

Including titles and transfers. It would sure make recovery of stolen property easier.

Hell, even a voluntary recording like some police offer for bicycles.

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. Every car has a VIN. Every gun has a serial number. I don't see the difference.

A voluntary recording would be necessary. I have no problem with that. Here's how I would deal with it...

Record the serial number of your gun voluntarily.

Should you ever be caught with a gun that didn't have a recorded serial number, pay a hefty penalty that would include incarceration because you failed to have the serial number of your gun recorded.

You are either the legal owner of the gun or not. You cannot be the legal owner of a gun whose serial number wasn't voluntarily recorded.

Record the number and possess the gun legally. Fail to do so and become the possessor of an illegal weapon. Pay the price.

[graham4anything]

22. What a sleight of hand. If you don't register it, who knows that it is yours?

as you are saying it would be done yourself, and it is used 3 states over, where is there proof of anything if there is no voluntary record?

Epic fail on this as it is not an idea of anything but nothing.

With no official authority checking, no one even knows it exists.

a trick even the Incredible Bert Wonderstone could pull off.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

29. You just described the gun nuts worse nightmare,...

A mandatory gun registry.

The gun makers are afraid of it because it would show how few people out there actually own guns.

A few fanatics are stockpiling them.


This was Charleston Heston's:



All to stop those damn dirty apes.

[hack89]

42. You need to check out Snopes about that picture. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

56. LOL! That's even better!...

They say nobody wants to claim it's theirs.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/architecture/gunvault.asp

So just how common are these ammo dumps?

[hack89]

58. Very rare I would imagine.

there is several million dollars worth of guns in that picture. Many of them are rare or uncommon collectors pieces. I doubt many are actually fired - it would reduce their value.

Such a collection would also require an expensive state of the art security system - it would be a juicy target for thieves. I also suspect his insurance premiums are very high. I suspect that is the real reason the owner is publicity shy.

Like fine art collections, collecting on that scale is a hobby for the 1%.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

59. I'm more impressed by this...

[hack89]

64. I would collect cars if I had that kind of money

sport and muscle cars.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

66. Kinda hard to fit in a basement though.

[Pelican]

95. That's not voluntary...

Do X or I'll charge you with a crime...

[Recursion]

18. Do you mean someone could legally own one magazine per handgun?

That seems difficult to do realistically.

I know magazine capacity seems like a reasonable avenue, and I don't think there's much particularly wrong with it, except that most murderers don't get past the first or second bullet anyways.

[cherokeeprogressive]

24. Slow down. Here's where it gets dicey...

My idea is for long guns without removable magazines. There be a sticking point the size of Mt. Everest to be sure. I didn't write my ideas down in stone. I put out there a starting point, and asked for input. I don't see how it would be possible to regulate the number of magazines one might own for their handgun.

My .06 and 30-30 as well as my 12 gauge all hold multiple rounds without a removable magazine. I'm fine with their capabilities. I don't believe the Second Amendment guarantees, other than an individual right to own a firearm, the ability for that firearm to use a removable magazine to hold extra rounds.

[Recursion]

26. But why worry about long guns at all? They aren't what's killing people

Handguns kill literally a thousand times as many people per year.

[Ghost in the Machine]

23. Well. *MY* 30-06 *does have a removable magazine, but it only holds 4 shells, too.

It's a Remington Model 742 WoodsMaster semi-auto. Like yours, (which I am assuming is a bolt action?), it only holds 1 in the chamber and 3 in the magazine. The action has to be open to insert/remove the magazine. You load the magazine, insert it in place, then close the action, which chambers a round, just like a bolt action, but without having to stuff the shells down into the detachable magazine. Holding the action open and dropping the magazine out, instead of having to rack the bolt several times to unload it is just quicker and easier, much like an SKS with a fixed 10 round magazine... you load it through the open action, but can push a button to flip the mag open, which just drops the shells out. Oh, and speaking of the 30-06, which I've owned for 30+ years, because of its unique design, they have NEVER been able to make a larger magazine for it, unlike other rifles with detachable magazines, like my SKS, for example. It's a 1956 Romanian military issue, complete with the bayonette, but now sits in a TAPCO polymer stock, with a 20 round detachable magazine. Other than cosmetics, it still functions the same... semi auto... one trigger pull, one shot.

I also disagree with background checks if I want to give my son one of my rifles. He's my son, I have taught him gun safety since he was 6 years old, and got his first BB gun. He's already passed background checks when he bought himself a .22, then a 30-30. I know he's not a felon, nor a nut-job.

I'm not a member of the NRA. I've never given them a dime either in magazine subscriptions or flat out contributions. I don't believe in lots of things they promote. I'm simply a person who believes the Second Amendment is a guarantee that the US Government will not infringe on my INDIVIDUAL right to own firearms for either hunting purposes or self-defense purposes, and I'm tired of being called a gun-humper because of what I believe.

I am with you 100% there as I can say the exact same thing. Never cared for the NRA, and never will. Like you, I've said my piece, and don't feel like getting anymore involved in what is sure to become a name-calling, hate-spewing flame-fest, so I'll just sit back and watch with some

Ghost

[Recursion]

27. I think a Firearm Operator ID Card is a great way to meet both of you two's concerns

When your son gets his first rifle, he gets an ID card that shows he has passed the background checks. He can show it to you, to a private seller, to a gun store owner, to a park ranger when he's out hunting, whatever.

[Ghost in the Machine]

31. That sounds rational, on its face value.. but how how would you confirm the permit hasn't been...

...revoked due to some reason since it was first issued? In some states, a person with a valid concealed carry permit doesn't have to go through a background check to purchase another weapon. They punch the permit number in, it shows still valid, and you get to buy your gun.

There are a few kinks, but your idea could be tweaked a little and be used effectively. Someone with the knowhow could create a great app for smart phones for this. ( I get credit for the idea, and some residual income from the sales of the app if anyone does this!! ) LOL

Peace,

Ghost

[Recursion]

36. Great question: my answer is a website and 800 number

The firearms license (and this could just be an endorsement on your driver's license or ID card) would have some sort of serial number; you go to the website or call the 800 number and enter that number in, and it tells you if it's still good (this is basically what cops have to do with drivers licenses as it is).

[Ghost in the Machine]

37. Good idea, but don't the cops and gun shops (Federally Licensed Dealers) use NCIC systems, which

cost money to use, thus the charge from the dealer to the customer for doing the background check? Do we really want every Tom, Dick and Hary to have access to the criminal database? I see opportunities for a lot of misuse, unless some fee structure is in place. A girl gets mad at her boyfriend/husband, knowing he has a record and can't legally purchase/own a gun, and she runs his name under the guise of trying to purchase a gun. The next thing he knows, cops are knocking at his door with an arrest warrant for a felon/non-qualified person attempting to buy a gun!

I appreciate the civil discussion, but I need to catch some sleep. I'll check in later today and see how it's going.

Peace,

Ghost

[Recursion]

38. Obviously there are privacy concerns, but these can be addressed

One way is to keep it its own separate card, and the only people you show it to are people to whom you want to demonstrate that you are authorized to buy a firearm. Frankly it's less of a privacy concern than the amount of info we put in a card that's really just supposed to indicate that you can drive a motor vehicle. But, that said, make some stiff penalties for misuse of the information. Also, I see no need to get rid of the NICS system as a whole; this would just be a convenient way to extend it to private sales (and expedite it at gun stores).

[longship]

33. This the first gun thread I will gladly R&K.

This is the kind of respectful and reasonable conversation I like to see here.

All things are not black and white. That's where many of us go wrong. It's a huge part of this nation's political problem. The you're either for us or against us mentality will be the end of us all.

Thank you for posting a reasonable gun post. And thank you, responders for making mostly constructive comments.

This is how politics should work.

I have no other opinions other than I agree with the OP sentiments.

[cantbeserious]

34. Responsible Gun Law Number One - Heavily Tax Ammunition - Trace All Gunpowder With Taggants

eom

[hack89]

43. So if your friend borrows your car, gets drunk and kills someone

you go to jail as well? Really?

[hack89]

45. You are not criminally liable

that is a huge distinction.

Right now, you can sue someone if you were harmed because they were irresponsible with their guns.

[hack89]

48. If you can prove willful negligence in court then sure

nothing stopping prosecutors from doing that right now.

[treestar]

70. The car analogy as usual is not valid

The friend takes the car in order to get somewhere.

And if your car is stolen, you report it right away.

[hack89]

75. Unfortunately the post I was replying to was deleted

so I can't show you the exact post I was replying.

[Kolesar]

41. Pistol owners who let somebody murder with their weapon should go away for a long stretch

When they get out and are jobless, at least at age 65, they could apply for SSI for $711/month. Go live the life of their dreams in a flop house or a trailer in some kudzu-choked ghetto. Think about all the dumb prisoners they met after contributing to a death.

[Igel]

72. "Let."

That's pretty much illegal now. It would be called conspiracy.

Those do don't take all possible precautions to prevent somebody from murdering with their weapon?

That's like saying we should take all possible precautions to avoid people's death due to automobiles, unsafe wiring, swimming pools, or salt. We don't take all possible precautions. Nor would we want to. It's good rhetoric; it's lousy policy.

[Kolesar]

86. Who let Mr. Obtuse into the forum this afternoon? ... eom

[hack89]

46. One flaw with your registry scheme

is that felons cannot be compelled to register their illegal guns due to 5th Amendment issues. Registry is irrelevant to criminals - you cannot punish them for disobeying the law.

[Sancho]

49. Gun possessors should have a current license...

they should have completed a safety course, and renew that training on a regular basis. You should have a license before purchasing a gun or ammo.

Also, there likely should be a mental/emotional health check before possessing a gun - it won't be foolproof, but basic mental health clearance would be useful. This might help reduce the suicides also.

I think gun possession/license should require insurance. The main reason is not for compensation for accidents, but because insurance companies would require safety checks, deny coverage if there were minors in the home, etc. Again, this would help cut down on the irresponsible guns in the hands of kids, etc.

Finally, there would be laws (like DUI)...if you have a gun and don't have a license or the gun isn't registered - then the gun is confiscated and you go to jail until a judge lets you go.

[hack89]

65. Insurance companies don't care if there are kids in the home

I have my guns insured plus I have umbrella liability coverage. Kids in the house were not an issue. They use actuarial tables to calculate risk. My insurance is dirt cheap because they understand the true risk.

[Sancho]

74. If policies were required for guns (like auto and homeowners), they would probably ask about kids...

just like some policies now ask about teenage drivers, pets, smoke detectors, etc. Policies specific to gun possession and use would include a new set of questions (or your premium would differ or else you may not be able to get insurance).

Insuring the value of guns is not the issue. Your umbrella policy likely has exclusions if you break the law, attempt suicide, or act carelessly. It was probably designed to protect you if a neighbor slips on the steps. If you have a teenager driving or raise attack dogs or have a daycare in your home, your policy would have to change or your premiums would go up. Call your insurance company and ask them, "if I am cleaning my gun and shoot my neighbor, or let my kids play with guns and they shoot my neighbor...will you pay their medical bills?" I'm curious what they'd say! Likely, illegally discharging a gun in the house (city limits, whatever) or being reckless is going to be an exclusion and you're in trouble. That's why they don't care about your "risk".

IF laws required insurance in order to have a firearm license; or required insurance on a registered gun...that would increase safety and possibly eliminate some of the dummies from giving kids guns or leaving them around irresponsibly. Those polices might require safety courses. The premium might be much larger if you had kids living with you.

Not perfect, but it's one possible addition to new statues. Requiring gun owners insurance doesn't impact the "2nd amendment", but it helps screen. Actuarial tables for firearm possession (incidents) may not be as common now as auto underwriters would have, since there is little research or insurance requirement for them. The sparse data available is clear...when there are more guns, more people get shot. If there is no gun, then no one gets shot.

[hack89]

76. I specifically insured my gun

it was not a mystery to my insurance agent that I had a safe full of guns AND a house full of kids. Did not make a difference.

The liability insurance covers negligence on my part. Of course it will not cover criminal acts - no insurance company would even consider that.

[CTyankee]

50. congrats on this thread. Nice to see some gun owners here stepping up.

I for one have been challenging them to do so for some time. You've really gotten the conversation started...

[Robb]

52. I'm giving this a rec.

I like every idea, and these would go a long way.

[Recursion]

63. Let me also add

We do need to come together on this, and I appreciate this attempt.

[cherokeeprogressive]

67. Thanks

Sooner or later we have to be able to discuss this without insults and hyperbole.

[treestar]

68. Sounds reasonable to me

I might not go so far as to hold the negligent owner liable for the same as the shooter, but having some penalty for it sounds like a good idea.

[hunter]

73. I'm hard core and unreasonable about guns.

I posted this in my journal:

Is the second ammendment a good thing? No. Hand me my black Sharpie marker. I'll take care of it.

I think anyone who owns a gun ought to be required to do a six week military boot camp, adapted to their physical abilities, but mentally and physically challenging in every way. Anyone who drops out, gets kicked out for anger issues, being a racist asshole, whatever... sorry, no gun license and three years before you can try again.

In addition gun owners would be required to do six weeks of national service every other year, not necessarily related to military or police types of duty, but working closely with a diverse sampling of the entire U.S. population -- white, black, young, old, immigrant, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, wealthy, poor, urban, rural, LBGT, etc. These gun owners would also be on call for military service at all times.

Licensing requirements for a very limited variety of hunting rifles and shotguns would not be so strict, but still require training and exams, rather like a driver's license.

Possessing a gun without a license would result in a mandatory one year prison sentence.

Posted by hunter | Thu Apr 25, 2013, 07:48 AM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=journals&uid=109742

The service requirement may seem harsh, but I think we need to take away the guns of racists, misogynists, people with anger issues, and people who have histories of violent crimes, especially domestic violence.

For reasonable peaceful people these "boot camps" and recurring public service requirements could be almost vacation-like. Gun owners would meet interesting people from all walks of life. For some it would be hell, they would have to work with and live with the sorts of people they most fear. If they can't do it they shouldn't have guns.

I think the military requirement is reasonable too. If one is willing to shoot someone in self defense, one ought to be willing to take up arms in defense of their nation. It might also be possible to disband much of our standing military.

Yep, I know it's a fantasy...

[Hoyt]

77. Cherokee, we wouldn't even need to debate guns if more gunners felt same way.

Unfortunately, most aren't reasonable. Good luck with your efforts to persuade the tens of millions of gun owners who aren't reasonable, much less rational on this issue.

[Skeeter Barnes]

78. Banning guns like the Ruger 10/22 or Marlin 795 is unreasonable.

You should think this through a little more. 10 rounds in a single stack handgun mag is OK but not in a double stack mag? What difference does it make? Why even mention that?

You're just throwing some of this out without even thinking about why you want it banned. Your 30-06 is OK but my 22lr rifle needs to go. Not only does it not make sense, your proposals would get less votes than the previous round of legislation that was voted on.

If all you wanted to do was post a grabber manifesto, then you accomplished that but don't portray this as trying to create meaningful dialogue.

FWIW,I'm with you about the NRA but that's about it.

[Comatose Sphagetti]

80. "No convicted felon should ever be allowed to possess a gun...

they've proven their unworthiness and their propensity for breaking the law."

Last week, a story ran in Cincinnati about Marguerite Kloos...

"Marguerite Kloos walked into court Tuesday as a nun who devoted her life to her religion. When she walked out, she was a convicted felon who escaped a prison term."

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130416/NEWS0107/304160065/Nun-pleads-guilty-voter-fraud-escapes-prison

Please tell me how Sister Kloos, who has devoted her life to helping others, is suddenly "unworthy?" Why should her offense negate her from obtaining housing, working with kids, getting certain loans, or owning a gun if she so desires, for the rest of her life?

As a convicted felon I deal with these absurdities every day, and I take offense at the blanket proposition that I am unworthy or have a propensity to break the law any more than anyone else.

Imagine you're in my shoes: Going through life, decades after a non-violent, victimless crime, and being reminded constantly, daily, and for the rest of your life, that you're now and forever "unworthy" and deemed as having a "propensity to break the law."

The proposition that redemption is not possible, people don't change, and infinite punishment for finite transgressions is acceptable is simplistic, black-and-white thinking and is the hallmark of authoritarians and conservatives. Not progressives.

[DeadEyeDyck]

81. you do the crime, you do the time

Forever, and ever, and ever, and ever...

[Comatose Sphagetti]

84. Very simplistic and jingoistic.

Doesn't require much thought, logic, or compassion to believe... especially if it doesn't affect me personally.

[DeadEyeDyck]

82. Look, this is a non starter. It may very well be

one of the biggest failures of Obama's tenure.
He could not even get it through the Senate!
It will not come to a vote unless the repubs lose the house. But not before.
Your proselytising is simply rubricizing the humiliation. Or maybe that is your purpose.
Hmmmmm....

[Comatose Sphagetti]

83. Rubricizing?

Please explain.

[Skeeter Barnes]

85. These cops needed a lot more than three rounds to defend themselves:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2801579

But they're not quite the gunfighter you are, right? Woe to them and anyone that can't stop an attack with three or less.

[LWolf]

87. I think this is a good place to start.

While I have opinions about this issue, I don't have a hard line stance to defend.

[Timbuk3]

88. I'm Curious About This

"No convicted felon should ever be allowed to possess a gun. They've proven their unworthiness and their propensity for breaking the law. "

How about someone who was arrested for felony DWI 20 years ago, has been through treatment, and can prove he/she hasn't had a drink since treatment?

What if they've since gone back to school, attained a Ph.D., and are now working a job virtually everyone would agree is "respectable".

Isn't it "liberal" to forgive someone who served time because they had a disease (alcoholism)?

What about someone busted for pot, with no other convictions?

Is there ever a case where someone who's committed a felony can be redeemed?

Same thing goes for voting rights, btw. Some states (SD I'm sure of) restore both the right to bear arms AND the right to vote. Others, not so much. Like southern states that don't like "them darkies" voting...

[cherokeeprogressive]

89. A sober me wouldn't have put it quite that way...

Notice the time of the post. I was deep into a bottle of Wild Turkey 101 by then and my wife and the company we had for the weekend had retired for the evening.

So, if you would be so kind as to let me rethink and restate my feelings about felons and guns, I'll try to do so.

My best childhood friend was pulled over about 30 years ago while coming back from buying a couple of grams of good coke. Bam. Instant Felon. He's had that tag ever since. I'd have no hesitation in trusting him with my life. I actually don't know whether or not he votes as we've never discussed politics even though we've known each other since we were about 5.

On reflection, I'd say I was more than a little harsh about convicted felons being "unworthy", or having a propensity for breaking the law. Knowing some, and being a non-felon only because I never got caught doing some things that would still be with me today, I should have never taken that stance.

How about a separate licensing process for felons? One where past transgressions don't necessarily generate a NO response during a background check? A process whereby criminal records are considered on a case-by-case basis. Violent felons would be a no-go while non-violent ones might have to suffer through some kind of personal interview. That, I'd be fine with.

Remember, in this discussion, everything is negotiable. I meant it as a start, not a final word...

[Timbuk3]

90. Thanks for your reply

...and restatement.

JFTR, my post was more of a question to the community than me calling you out. There are plenty of people who think it's just fine to make felons pay a price for the rest of their lives, rather than serve their time and then (at least have a chance to) return to being productive members of society. And, I really don't agree with them, about more than just guns.

I did a quick search and found this:

http://www.nacdl.org/uploadedFiles/files/resource_center/2012_restoration_project/Loss_and_Restoration_of_Civil_Rights_and_Firearms_Privileges.pdf

A quick scan of the page tells me that there are several states that restore civil rights after a felony conviction, once the sentence has been served, so maybe it's not as bad as I'm making it to be, but seriously, why let them out of jail if we're not going to give them a chance to live like any other citizen, again?

Edited to add: I appreciated your original post, too. All the more well-done, seeing as how you were "deep into a bottle of Wild Turkey 101 by then".

[ejbrush]

91. Any thoughts on a tier system?

I like the idea of a FOID card that would be subject to periodic renewal. I would tie various firearm family endorsements levels to that card, based on safety training, demonstrated secure storage intent, local community approval, more rigorous background checks and proof of insurance. These endorsements would apply to tiers of firearms, based on the family of firearm. You start with an unrestricted family, muzzle-loading replicas, .22 rimfire rifles, single shot centerfire rifles and single-shot shotguns. You have an FOID endorsement for repeating rifle or shotgun ownership, a further endorsement for handgun ownership, a further endorsement for self-loading firearms, a further endorsement for the toys like full auto or short barreled items, a further endorsement for artillery... We have a similar system in place for operating motor vehicles on the public roadways - motorcycle endorsements, commercial drivers license, chauffeur license, haz-mat license.

[PD Turk]

93. I agree with a lot of wat you have there

I'm leery of the gun registry and would only agree with it if the law that created it clearly stated that it could NEVER be used to confiscate guns.

I'm in favor of requiring every first time gun buyer to take and pass a mandated safety course. Every transfer goes through a background check.

Magazine capacity limits? I'm not against limiting the capacity of detachable magazines. Number of rounds? I'm still thinking about that. I have a model 1873 Winchester that was made in 1881 that holds 15 rounds (14+1) and a Uberti replica of a 1860 Henry that holds 14 (13+1) so maybe 15 max for long guns, pistol capacity limited to whatever the stock mag that fits in the grip holds.

I'm also thinking, exempt .22LR from the aforementioned limits. Wanna play GI Joe in the woods with the "scary black rifles"? Knock yourself out, if it's a .22, sky's the limit, dress it any way you want and feed it any way you want.

Mandatory safe storage? You bet, no problem with that. Keep your guns locked up and inaccessable to children or face the music.