How to affect gun crime -- and the AWB isn't it

[Sgent]

Last edited Tue Aug 14, 2012, 07:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Everyone has (rightfully) been very worried about gun crime, but I've seen a lot of wailing about the AWB. The AWB was a feel good measure which did nothing to actually eliminate gun violence. My suggestions (in order of potentially actually passing):

1) Get rid of no background check private sales. I'd still allow for private sales (no dealer needed), but require that a background check be performed and the sale registered just as in an dealer -- the ATF or an approved private licensee could do it. The exemption made sense in the early 90's, but today with the internet and smartphones it holds no water.

2) Confiscate weapons which are used in an illegal manner or present during illegal activities -- including illegal discharge, etc. This is largely done in some jurisdictions, not so much in others.

3) Make gun owners responsible for illegal discharge or brandishing of their weapon. This means that if a gun is stolen, or discharged by a child or used in a suicide by a non-owner, the original owner would face misdemeanor (or felony if multiple times) charges. This absolute liability means if you can't secure your weapon, don't own one.

4) Make semi-automatic pistols a class II firearm (essentially meaning a major background check / licensing fee). This would cause a complete shit storm from gun proponents, but illegally used pistols account for most of the problems. I might even settle for only applying this to smaller calibers (say .40 and less) which are the real problem (since they are more concealable).

Revolvers aren't near the issue because they don't allow for rapid fire of more than a few rounds, and quick changing a revolver (which can be done) is much more complex and unlikely to be easily done by someone without significant practice.

5) Apply 4 to rifles -- at least those larger than a .22 -- there's no real reason to do so for shotguns since the shells are so large that they usually only hold 5-6 rounds at most. For hunting purposes, a lever or bolt action is perfectly usable in all situations -- and more accurate to boot.

[Reasonable_Argument]

1. Point by point

1) would do little to stop criminals and nothing to prevent the recent shootings
2) you can already be cited for this and what about ADs that are a result of mechanical failure? Confiscation is far to over zealous
3) many smaller safes can be easily opened by dropping them and short of a bank vault there's little you can do to stop a determined adult
4) why do you want to make it difficult for people to have the most effective tool for defending themselves by making them go through a very lengthy process? Also, there are pleanty of compact 45s and people carry weapons as large as a 1911 everyday without anyone noticing. My first carry gun was a double stacked 9mm. You just have to dress for it, I went smaller later on due to the weight.
5) the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting so it's a nonstarter? As for accuracy, check out what people shoot at the Camp Perry CMP shoots, ARs everywhere.

[Sgent]

4. #1 combined with #3

would essentially stop strawman purchases which are an issue.

[Clames]

5. Um, no.

No enforcement mechanism. Makes even less sense when combined with #3.

[petronius]

2. I have little patience for people who behave unsafely, so I agree that people who

are demonstrably negligent (or perhaps even offensively lackadaisical) with firearm storage ought to face sanctions and liability. However, an "absolute liability" is too close to victim-blaming for my taste. If a person's home is broken into and their property stolen, the real liability belongs to the thief, not the victim.

On #4, what do you envision as a "major" background check, and what sort of fee? I would certainly oppose anything that is intended merely to increase the difficulty and expense for otherwise fully qualified persons...

(Also, I'm generally not a spelling freak, but you ought to fix that header - it really changes the meaning. )

[Sgent]

3. Negligence

Yea, the strict liability is a little harsh -- however, its meant to be. You also find this in other areas of the law (sex abuse reporting, federal false claims act, etc.). I can understand the argument against it, but its meant to be harsh so people who want to own guns actually do keep them out the hands of nuts -- see the Arkansas shooting where the boys used their grandfather's guns.

#4 I see the same background check as currently is done for a Type II license (grenades, fully auto machine guns, etc.).

btw... I fixed the spelling

[petronius]

6. Have you come across any details on what the NFA background check

actually entails? Other than a requirement to submit a photo and fingerprints (which I assume get run through a fingerprint database), I haven't found any specifics on what that check is in comparison to the ordinary NICS check...

[gejohnston]

7. from what I understand,

it is two guys with a massive backlog. The ATF says there transfer applications more than triples but a OPM wide hiring freeze prevents them from doing anything. Basically, as I understand it, it is how NICS would have been done in the 1930s.