A modest Proposal: Second Amendment protection Act

[Frodo_Baggins]

My variant on the Fenton Firearms Commerce Act

• Repeal the following legislation:

o 1934 National Firearms Act
o 1938 Federal Firearms Act
o 1968 Gun Control Act
o 1972 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms created
o 1986 Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act
o 1986 Firearms Owners' Protection Act
o 1990 Crime Control Act
o 1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (except NICS).
o 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
o 1995 Gun-Free School Zones Act
o 1996 The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban


Make it illegal:
1.For people to engage in the business of dealing in guns without a license.

2.To posess destructive devices within city limits/withing 3 miles of an airport/seaport without a license.

3.For violent offenders and people who are abjudicated mentally incompetent to purchase arms.

4.To posess WMD.

5.For minors to carry arms on public property and to carry them private property without permission of the owner (this solves the problem of "kids with guns" yet lets parents start their kids on shooting if they want to.

Would this work?

[coloradodem2005]

1. Sounds fair to me.

I personally am not a big advocate of gun control, but a lot of this should be common sense anyways. I also think that instead of excessive gun control, that people should be educated about firearms and about the responsibility that goes with them. It is important for everyone to know that while they have the freedom to own a firearm, that there is great responsibility that comes with it. For me, your law would only hurt the criminals which is good.

[FeebMaster]

2. No deal.

Deal breaker:

Make it illegal:
1.For people to engage in the business of dealing in guns without a license.

[coloradodem2005]

3. would it be better if that was out.

Though, I agree with that provision.

[FeebMaster]

7. You'd have to

get rid of 1, 2, and 5 for sure for me to agree with it.

4 is fine by me.

3 would require some kind of check when people buy guns and that's unacceptable to me. If you could come up with a way to do it without a check at purchase time then I might agree to it. Like if someone is caught after the fact, committing a crime or something, you could tack on the extra charge. Even then, it's iffy to me. As far as I'm concerned, once someone has done their time, then that's it. You can't go restricting their rights once you let them out.

[Frodo_Baggins]

8. Why not?

A judge can sentence you to ten years, twenty years, or ten years and looss of 2A rights. Don't commit violent crimes and nothing will happen.

Y

[FeebMaster]

10. So

if your person who has been sentenced to the loss of 2A rights decides he wants a gun later, how do you plan on stopping him? Are you going to run a background check on millions of innocent people on the off chance that he might try to buy a gun from a licensed dealer? Do you think that's going to stop him from getting a gun in another, unregulated market?

It's not the criminal that concerns me. It's the millions of people you want to run background checks on in the futile attempt to prevent that criminal from getting guns.

[Frodo_Baggins]

13. If and when he confronts a police officer

and that one spots a gun on him - even during a traffic - off to prison again.

[FeebMaster]

14. I think

I'd be willing to make that compromise assuming there was no check on people who buy firearms.

On edit:

It would have to be restricted to violent offenders though. I don't want non-violent people convicted of victimless crimes losing their rights.

[jhfenton]

15. We should get rid of victimless crimes while we're at it.

(Edited to note that this was my 500th post.)

[FeebMaster]

19. Me too.

That'll be the day, though.

[Frodo_Baggins]

21. Oh, but why not?

I mean, long as there's assurance the check isn't used for registration?

[FeebMaster]

23. I simply find it

unreasonable to subject millions of people to background checks in the fruitless attempt to stop a few from getting a gun.

[Wickerman]

4. Why wouldn't you want gun dealers licensed?

seems like you would, for the protection of the hobby itself.

[Frodo_Baggins]

6. I think the reason many people don't want gun dealers licensed

is that they are afraid that people who sell a gun for whatever reason and are not gun dealers will get prosecuted, and to tell the truth, I don't know how to deal with it.

[FeebMaster]

9. Because as far as I'm concerned

guns are no different then food, or books, or cars, or any other sell-able product. If two people want to trade money for goods or goods for goods then that's their business. A dealer is just someone who does it on a larger scale.

What good does licensing dealers do anyway? Does making someone pay for the privilege of selling goods prevent criminals from getting guns? Do dealers on the black market bother to get licenses? It's just pointless as far as I'm concerned.

[jhfenton]

5. I have no problems...

with your proposal. I'm just trying to outline actual legislation to be drafted and introduced by a representative. I'm not trying to draft the law I would impose if I were King.

People who insist on all or nothing, tend to get just that.

[FeebMaster]

11. True.

"People who insist on all or nothing, tend to get just that."

But there is little point in compromising when so much has already been compromised away. Besides, as far as your proposal goes, in the eyes of most gun grabbers it's no different than a kook like me who wants no regulation at all on guns.

[jhfenton]

12. True.

That's probably because I'm also really a "kook" who wants no regulation at all on guns.

[MissMarple]

16. It seems that putting something in the Constitution guarantees discord.

Or, continuing discord. But, after doing a little reading on the Second Amendment this week, whoa!, I can see why there is so much disagreement. It brings a whole new meaning to the word "quagmire". I don't have strong feelings either way, but I do think we need sensible regulation. There is some thought that "well regulated" meant well behaved, law abiding citizens. Even that indicates, to me at least, that some oversight is required to keep the irresponsible, the incompetent, and the criminal from shooting their guns and etc. off at odd child moments.

And I also am beginning to see how the Internet has provided "the militia" with one of its most valuable weapons, communication. And in today's society I think a handful of hackers might do more damage to an errant government than a handful of average guys with guns. Not to disparage average guys with guns.

[jhfenton]

17. "some oversight"

I don't think that anyone would dispute the merits of regulating certain behavior with guns. Your description of "the irresponsible, the incompetent, and the criminal" is pretty apt. I'm completely opposed to the irresponsible, the incompetent, and the criminal shooting their guns off inappropriately.

What gets us "gun nuts" annoyed is laws directed at (1) inanimated objects and (2) responsible behavior, all in a purported attempt to regulate irresponsible behavior.

Why not just regulate the irresponsible behavior?

[MissMarple]

18. Good point.

Too bad it is so sensible, it's hard to keep folks stirred up (on either side) with sensible legislation. Where are the votes in that?
Sorry to sound so cynical. But eventually, I think we'll get there.

[jhfenton]

20. Why in the world would anyone be cynical about politics? ;) (n/t)

[DavidMS]

22. No.

Intresting idea, however I see two major problems.

WMDs should not fall under gun controll. Chemical weapons should fall under workplace safty / chemical storage / failure to inspect faciliities / etc laws. Nukes aught to fall under a radiologial material controll act. Bio weapons should fall under a "Labrotory procedures and specime registration act" that would make it very easy for scientific resarch and inquiry but make weaponization difficult.

Second problem is Destructive Devices should be subject to NFA style controlls. Mostly because RPGs and similar weapons I am shure are quite fun to blow things up with but any sort of Neglegant Discharge could be disasterous.