Thursday, August 29, 2013

Proper Gun Control Laws (not exhaustive, just the major ones)

reposted for the recent bizarre comment by Texas Colt carry

What Do We Mean by Proper Gun Control?

1. Licensing of all gun owners which would include a penal background check, a mental health background check, an eye exam, a written and practical test and approval by the local authorities.

2. Registration of all newly bought firearms which would need to be renewed after three months and yearly thereafter by presenting the paperwork and the weapon to the police.

3. Background checks on all purchases including private ones. This can be done at the local FFL dealer for a nominal fee.

4. Three day waiting period for all first purchases.

5. "May Issue" policy for concealed carry permits managed federally - same rules in every state.

6. Assault Weapons Ban using the California model which would include restrictions on extended magazines.

25 comments:

  1. 1. Here is the old second amendment thing. You want to throw in a bunch of extra tests, and then you want to include what appears to be law enforcement discretion as to whether be "allowed" to exercise your rights.

    2. Trying to visualize 300 million plus firearms being schlepped to the local PD to have your "papers" checked. I'm also assuming you'd want to run a background check, so then there is dealing with false hits and stuff.

    3. If you have to get a license annually from the PD, why exactly do you need another background check?

    4. Not for every purchase? No one gun a month? I'm surprised.

    5. Carry permits managed federally? Yet local police discretion to make it "may issue"? Are we also talking nationwide reciprocity?

    6. Which one? They keep changing it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do like the one gun a month thing. I also believe in a waiting period for first-time buyers.

      Delete
  2. You've been away from America too long. We'll never tolerate this. This will never pass here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The California model is about to go full stupid, expect a push back on their further restrictions. The push back is already going on in Colorado other states that have been pushing even further restrictions on constitutional rights.

    To push this idea on the rest of the states you would create a revolt, a big one. Not only from the people but in the law maker circles as well.

    The states that vote in their reps that place these restrictive laws on their people either want that kind of thing or their reps are not representing their people. The people still have the chance of changing their reps at local, county, state and federal levels. You can not have a dictator in this country and that's what your asking for.

    Your proposals will never happen and you know it Mike. So why even propose this level of stupidity? People as a whole will only accept just so much restrictions on their rights and freedom. If you go too far, and too fast, it will be thrown out along with a bunch of restrictions already in place.

    As an example we have not one constitutional carry state now, but five and others considering the same. We have lawmakers in a lot of other states passing laws a resolutions to prohibit and prevent draconian laws from being enforced in their states. Why? Because the PEOPLE don't want to be restricted from their freedoms,,,, any further.

    We are a representative republic, not a democracy or a dictator rule. Your proposals would require such a rule and the people wont have it because if such a thing were to pass where would it stop? Imposing other restrictions on other rights and freedoms would continue from power hunger controllers in office. Power corrupts and leads to even more corruption.

    I for one don't want to see in this country in civil wars like in other parts of the world where military leadership and dictatorships have resulted in decades and even centuries of fighting, overthrow of governments and wars against their own people. Your proposals lead directly into those kinds of things Mike. Oh maybe not immediately, but when enough is taken, tyrannical rule is imposed, it will happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love your self-aggrandizing prediction of a revolt.

      Delete
    2. The rest of us don't love your self important denial of the possibility of such and insistence that we push gun owners as far as possible to prove that your guess is correct.

      Delete
    3. We have discussed this before Mike. Remember the whole human nature thing. People at their core are still animalistic. Back them into a corner, take away their freedoms, take away things they work for and they will fight back.

      Its not a "self-aggrandizing prediction" as you say. Its a demonstrable action that you still going on see in other countries. In fact I think that the average citizen has shown remarkable restraint so far here in this country. But restraints can and will be eventually broken. Signs of that are occurring right now.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous, "my guess" is that you guys are all talk and no action. Otherwise, we would see news stories from time to time of tough-guy gun owners resisting the powers that be. But we don't, do we?

      Delete
    5. Mikeb, do you notice how gun laws keep getting better in the free states? Just wait till a good case gets to the current Supreme Court. The system is working right now.

      Delete
    6. Mike,

      Stop encouraging people to go out on lone gunman rampages. We've been over the idea of resistance before and you constantly refuse to even attempt to understand what we're saying, preferring to go on with all manner of stupid comments as you misinterpret everything we say.

      Delete
    7. It's not me, T., it's Anonymous who brought it up. It's guys on your side of the argument who frequently make the threats. I'm just pointing out that they're all talk and no action, school yard bullies who have their bluff called.

      200 gun confiscations and not a single act of resistance. You remember that post, don't you?

      Delete
    8. Actually, Texas was the first one to mention that there was a line that your side seems determined to push all the way across. Still, if you look at his statement and the Anonymous posting, you'll see that neither wants to see such a fight happen--that they're bringing it up not as a threat but as a statement to tread carefully and be careful what you wish for.

      You are the one who always responds: "Hey! Look at this violation of rights! Why don't you go out and shoot someone over it! Hypocrite! Put you lead where your mouth is!"

      Delete
    9. No, T., I don't say "why don't you go do it?" I say why haven't you already?"

      I say that in response to the frequent macho statements on your part. I say if you guys weren't all talk, there would have already been many examples of this kind of thing.

      But there's not.

      Delete
    10. Excuse me! There's a HUGE difference between asking "Why don't you" and "why haven't you already"!

      As for why we haven't, we've explained many times the idea of a last resort, and while you demand that we add in extra steps of attempting to defuse a situation with a mugger, you seem incapable of comprehending that we would want to take every opportunity to defuse a situation where a civil war could be an outcome.

      Delete
  4. 1) I’ve always wondered about this “eye exam”. Do you allow for corrective vision the way driver’s licenses do? What about the fact that people don’t wear glasses or contacts to bed, and if there is a nighttime home invasion they won’t have time to put them on (certainly contacts)?

    2) And you’re ok with this being the only thing many police do? By that, I mean this is their new job. 21,000 cops doing nothing but re-registering guns, full-time, 40 hours a week (that’s assuming only 10min per gun). 21,000 cops who are no longer patrolling our streets. And that’s going to be good for crime?

    3) Are you going to revise your “this can be done at an FFL” part? I recall you recently chastised us for saying this is your position.

    You’re right that this is far stricter than California, though. California doesn’t have “may-issue” for gun ownership (if they did, I couldn’t own guns).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mikeb won't admit to this, but his entire goal is to make gun ownership so difficult that few will bother to do it legally. The remainder can be swept up and put under government supervision as time allows. Safety has nothing to do with his interests.

      Delete
    2. Good point about the night-time eye problems, but I figure someone could take a couple seconds to put their glasses on, then manage their way through the lock of combination on the gun safe, and still be in time to kill anyone who dared to violate their territory.

      I didn't say it can ONLY be done at the local FFL. Those other arrangements would work fine for me.

      Delete
    3. Hooray for Mike's dream world, where gun owners get shot trying to get into safes.

      Delete
    4. Hooray for your world where gun owners keep guns under the pillow when the grandkids come visiting.

      Delete
    5. There's a difference in keeping a gun available at night and always leaving it out on the nightstand, day or night, in the room or not, etc.

      I made my comment because, intentionally or not, you implied that safe storage laws would require a gun to be locked in a safe at all times and that if you were found sleeping with one under the pillow, even if it was only while you were actually sleeping there, you would be in violation.

      This gave the impression that your "safe storage" laws went a bit beyond the past impressions I've had of them.

      Delete
  5. Number of criminals who will obey any of these laws: zero.
    Mission: failed.

    Moonshine

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mike,

    Your "rules" that dictate how a citizen can purchase, own, and possess firearms is an insult to their human dignity. Your rules are intrusive, expensive, demeaning, require a lot of time and money, and intrude into every aspect of a citizen's life.

    Furthermore, many of your requirements are ripe for abuse -- such as licensing and "may issue" concealed carry permits. A license database is one disgruntled employee away from being public knowledge. And chief law enforcement officers frequently require "favors" before granting "may issue" concealed carry licenses.

    Your rules have one and only one guaranteed outcome: to subjugate all citizens to the ruling elite. That is vulgar.

    - TruthBeTold

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Insult to their human dignity." Brwahahahahahahahaha

      Delete
    2. Exactly, Mikeb. You're shown the truth, and you demonstrate how little you care about it. Your ideas are an insult to all decent people, an insult to the concept of liberty. Laugh if you wish. That's all you'll get.

      Delete
    3. An insult to human dignity, right?

      Delete