Full Version: What's your personal opinion
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Second Amendment, Gun Safety and Gun Control > Second Amendment, Gun Safety and Gun Control Archive
I'm just curious to know what your personal opinion is on reasonable gun control. Many of you know my position on this topic from reading my previous posts, but i will have to say that Project Exile is a pretty good start. Hey, it worked in Virginia, why couldn't it work all over?
In the simplest terms...You must rigorously enforce the laws that are on the books now. It doesn't matter how many inane control measures you propose, if they aren't enforced. Gun registration won’t stop violent gun crime…PERIOD!
In a nutshell--pretty much what's on the books now (the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the AP handgun ammo restriction, etc.). Maybe add a way to run a background check on private sales without it becoming a backdoor registration system or making private sales or lawful intra-family transfers a hassle for the law-abiding. But do reopen the Title 2 MG registry that was closed in '86, and repeal the "sporting purposes only" import test, which caters to the small minority of gun owners who hunt. A tax credit toward the purchase of a gun safe would be nice, to encourage safe storage.
QUOTE(benEzra @ Oct 7 2005, 08:14 AM)
In a nutshell--pretty much what's on the books now (the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the AP handgun ammo restriction, etc.). Maybe add a way to run a background check on private sales without it becoming a backdoor registration system or making private sales or lawful intra-family transfers a hassle for the law-abiding. But do reopen the Title 2 MG registry that was closed in '86, and repeal the "sporting purposes only" import test, which caters to the small minority of gun owners who hunt. A tax credit toward the purchase of a gun safe would be nice, to encourage safe storage.
Ben,
A question for you to educate me.
What would be wrong if I wanted to sell a gun privately to a person. The local gun dealer would do the transacion and the only fee to either the buyer or seller would be the cost of doing the backgound check?
Then for gun shows, do a pre registration three days ahead. If a person has a CC permit they are exempt If I 'might purchase' something I have my clearence. If I do not plan on buying anything, I do not need to be screaned?
There's nothing stopping you from doing that now (and the only guns I've ever sold, I sold to an FFL for that reason).
The main problem I would have with that approach is finding a gun dealer to do the sale through. And you'd DEFINITELY pay for the dealer's time; Federal law requires him/her to keep your paperwork for 20 years (IIRC), and the sale will likely require him to include your transaction in his FFL bound book. Most FFL's charge around $25 for transfers, as I recall. Wal-Mart won't do them, so you have to find a mom and pop gun shop or pawn shop, and some of them would rather sell your their stuff than do a transfer for you on which they make little money.
Regarding gun shows, most gun purchases at shows are from FFL's anyway, so you'd have background checks there already. The only gun I've ever bought from a non-dealer at a gun show was one I had planned to make from an FFL, and a private collector had one instead (an antique Polish rifle from the early post-WW2 era). I didn't know I'd be buying from a non-FFL until 15 minutes before I bought it, and that's probably the way most private sales work (you won't know who will have the make/model of gun you're looking for until you actually go).
Here in NC, background checks are already required on all private handgun sales; the way it works is that you have to go to your local sheriff and get a handgun purchase permit at some point before the sale (costs $5), and you must present that permit to the seller at the time of purchase. The big downside is the hassle of having to travel all the way to the county seat during working hours to get the permit (though our local sheriff often sets up at gun shows so that people can get permits on the spot if needed), and that might have a chilling effect on gun purchases by minorities in some communities (depends on the sheriff's attitude). The permit requirement is waived if you have a valid CCW permit, since the permit requires a more thorough background check than even the Federal NCIS check.
The main problem I would have with that approach is finding a gun dealer to do the sale through. And you'd DEFINITELY pay for the dealer's time; Federal law requires him/her to keep your paperwork for 20 years (IIRC), and the sale will likely require him to include your transaction in his FFL bound book. Most FFL's charge around $25 for transfers, as I recall. Wal-Mart won't do them, so you have to find a mom and pop gun shop or pawn shop, and some of them would rather sell your their stuff than do a transfer for you on which they make little money.
Regarding gun shows, most gun purchases at shows are from FFL's anyway, so you'd have background checks there already. The only gun I've ever bought from a non-dealer at a gun show was one I had planned to make from an FFL, and a private collector had one instead (an antique Polish rifle from the early post-WW2 era). I didn't know I'd be buying from a non-FFL until 15 minutes before I bought it, and that's probably the way most private sales work (you won't know who will have the make/model of gun you're looking for until you actually go).
Here in NC, background checks are already required on all private handgun sales; the way it works is that you have to go to your local sheriff and get a handgun purchase permit at some point before the sale (costs $5), and you must present that permit to the seller at the time of purchase. The big downside is the hassle of having to travel all the way to the county seat during working hours to get the permit (though our local sheriff often sets up at gun shows so that people can get permits on the spot if needed), and that might have a chilling effect on gun purchases by minorities in some communities (depends on the sheriff's attitude). The permit requirement is waived if you have a valid CCW permit, since the permit requires a more thorough background check than even the Federal NCIS check.
Private handgun sales within the state of Missouri also require the buyer to acquire a Handgun Purchase Permit from the sheriff of the county the buyer lives in. A background check is done on that buyer by the sheriff’s dept. at the time of acquisition. The sheriff's dept. has up to 10 days to complete the check if needed. The seller on recieving the permit, transfers the handgun and fills out the rest of the permit with his particulars and the info on the gun, and returns it to the county sheriff. There is no time limit for how long these permits may be held by the sheriff.
There are no restrictions on the private sale of long guns in Missouri.
Because we have the sheriffs permit system for handguns in place here, the Brady system isn't needed.
There are no restrictions on the private sale of long guns in Missouri.
Because we have the sheriffs permit system for handguns in place here, the Brady system isn't needed.
QUOTE(FellowDemocrat @ Oct 6 2005, 09:28 PM)
I'm just curious to know what your personal opinion is on reasonable gun control. Many of you know my position on this topic from reading my previous posts, but i will have to say that Project Exile is a pretty good start. Hey, it worked in Virginia, why couldn't it work all over?
Virginia still (correct me if I'm wrong) allow slime balls from New York to purchase 25 or 50 Glock 9mm guns, load 'em into the trunk of their Lincoln Towns Cars, so they can sell 'em on the streets in Bedford-Styvessant.
The best "gun control" IMHO would be ONE GUN A MONTH. For the individual gun freak, I think 12 a year would still whet his appetite, while putting a substantial hole in the illegal firearms business.
There are other states guilty of selling to the street dealers - Virginia is merely the closest to New York, Philly, and DC.
This is an issue that I've never had a great deal of interest in one way or the other.
The only time I've ever personally had possesion of a gun was while I was in the
Navy, my job required me to carry a 45 automatic at times but I did not like
doing so. My greatest objection is allowing permits to carry concealed hand guns
(except for law enforcement plainclothes persons). Strategically, I think democrats
should not emphasize the issue at election times and work toward building
consensus at other times.
The only time I've ever personally had possesion of a gun was while I was in the
Navy, my job required me to carry a 45 automatic at times but I did not like
doing so. My greatest objection is allowing permits to carry concealed hand guns
(except for law enforcement plainclothes persons). Strategically, I think democrats
should not emphasize the issue at election times and work toward building
consensus at other times.
QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Oct 8 2005, 08:53 AM)
Virginia still (correct me if I'm wrong) allow slime balls from New York to purchase 25 or 50 Glock 9mm guns, load 'em into the trunk of their Lincoln Towns Cars, so they can sell 'em on the streets in Bedford-Styvessant.
The best "gun control" IMHO would be ONE GUN A MONTH. For the individual gun freak, I think 12 a year would still whet his appetite, while putting a substantial hole in the illegal firearms business.
There are other states guilty of selling to the street dealers - Virginia is merely the closest to New York, Philly, and DC.
Nope. You're wrong. By Federal law a gun may only be sold to a resident of the state or a bordering state. The people you describe break both federal and state laws. Also, purchases of more than five fireams in a week are automatically reported to the ATF for investigation. ATF does spot checks on these buyers to make sure they aren't dealing illegally. The best "gun control" IMHO would be ONE GUN A MONTH. For the individual gun freak, I think 12 a year would still whet his appetite, while putting a substantial hole in the illegal firearms business.
There are other states guilty of selling to the street dealers - Virginia is merely the closest to New York, Philly, and DC.
I have boutgh multiple guns at once. Why? Simple. To save money on shipping and transfer fees. Your way, I would have had to pay $25 extra for each gun, my way I paid $25 for two.
What exactly would one gun a month do? If I decide to use mine in some nefarious way I already have one.
QUOTE(benEzra @ Oct 7 2005, 03:38 PM)
There's nothing stopping you from doing that now (and the only guns I've ever sold, I sold to an FFL for that reason).
The main problem I would have with that approach is finding a gun dealer to do the sale through. And you'd DEFINITELY pay for the dealer's time; Federal law requires him/her to keep your paperwork for 20 years (IIRC), and the sale will likely require him to include your transaction in his FFL bound book. Most FFL's charge around $25 for transfers, as I recall. Wal-Mart won't do them, so you have to find a mom and pop gun shop or pawn shop, and some of them would rather sell your their stuff than do a transfer for you on which they make little money.
Regarding gun shows, most gun purchases at shows are from FFL's anyway, so you'd have background checks there already. The only gun I've ever bought from a non-dealer at a gun show was one I had planned to make from an FFL, and a private collector had one instead (an antique Polish rifle from the early post-WW2 era). I didn't know I'd be buying from a non-FFL until 15 minutes before I bought it, and that's probably the way most private sales work (you won't know who will have the make/model of gun you're looking for until you actually go).
Here in NC, background checks are already required on all private handgun sales; the way it works is that you have to go to your local sheriff and get a handgun purchase permit at some point before the sale (costs $5), and you must present that permit to the seller at the time of purchase. The big downside is the hassle of having to travel all the way to the county seat during working hours to get the permit (though our local sheriff often sets up at gun shows so that people can get permits on the spot if needed), and that might have a chilling effect on gun purchases by minorities in some communities (depends on the sheriff's attitude). The permit requirement is waived if you have a valid CCW permit, since the permit requires a more thorough background check than even the Federal NCIS check.
The main problem I would have with that approach is finding a gun dealer to do the sale through. And you'd DEFINITELY pay for the dealer's time; Federal law requires him/her to keep your paperwork for 20 years (IIRC), and the sale will likely require him to include your transaction in his FFL bound book. Most FFL's charge around $25 for transfers, as I recall. Wal-Mart won't do them, so you have to find a mom and pop gun shop or pawn shop, and some of them would rather sell your their stuff than do a transfer for you on which they make little money.
Regarding gun shows, most gun purchases at shows are from FFL's anyway, so you'd have background checks there already. The only gun I've ever bought from a non-dealer at a gun show was one I had planned to make from an FFL, and a private collector had one instead (an antique Polish rifle from the early post-WW2 era). I didn't know I'd be buying from a non-FFL until 15 minutes before I bought it, and that's probably the way most private sales work (you won't know who will have the make/model of gun you're looking for until you actually go).
Here in NC, background checks are already required on all private handgun sales; the way it works is that you have to go to your local sheriff and get a handgun purchase permit at some point before the sale (costs $5), and you must present that permit to the seller at the time of purchase. The big downside is the hassle of having to travel all the way to the county seat during working hours to get the permit (though our local sheriff often sets up at gun shows so that people can get permits on the spot if needed), and that might have a chilling effect on gun purchases by minorities in some communities (depends on the sheriff's attitude). The permit requirement is waived if you have a valid CCW permit, since the permit requires a more thorough background check than even the Federal NCIS check.
So in other words, this is already being done (in some states) or
Most law abiding citizens would probably be ok with this? Baring the time needed to drive in many rural towns.
Once again, I am shocked that so many of the amreican public (including me) do not know this exits. More over, I am shocked that the Anti-gun people are so disengenous about what is in place already.
This is where I to a degree admire Ace, although I totally disagree with him. At least he is open and up front and states his goal is to eliminate all guns, end of discussion.
That is so much better than, we need a new law to make fully atuo guns illegal, we already have that one.
Thanks,
QUOTE(WHIGHF @ Oct 8 2005, 12:38 PM)
What exactly would one gun a month do? If I decide to use mine in some nefarious way I already have one.
I don't care what YOU do with your gun. I want to cut down - no eliminate - the rampant market in illegal guns in the inner city.
I hope you are right that the Feds have this in hand. After Katrina, I have so little faith in their ability to do much of anything except scare people.
QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Oct 8 2005, 04:07 PM)
I don't care what YOU do with your gun. I want to cut down - no eliminate - the rampant market in illegal guns in the inner city.
I hope you are right that the Feds have this in hand. After Katrina, I have so little faith in their ability to do much of anything except scare people.
I hope you are right that the Feds have this in hand. After Katrina, I have so little faith in their ability to do much of anything except scare people.
Illegal guns aren't purchased in mass from reputable dealers, Jeff. In fact...a special "multi-gun purchase" form has to be filled out by the buyer. That's two or more at the same time.
When people consider that a gun or a gun transaction is illegal they seem to fail to consider that which makes it illegal are the human beings involved, not the guns themselves.
Making a statement such as "I want to cut down - not eliminate - the rampant market in illegal guns in the inner city." does really nothing if it's asking for additional laws.
There is obviously a law already in place which makes the gun transaction illegal, what does a further law do? Make it twice as illegal?
Enforcement of existing laws or increased penalties for breaching existing laws seems really the only solution.
Making a statement such as "I want to cut down - not eliminate - the rampant market in illegal guns in the inner city." does really nothing if it's asking for additional laws.
There is obviously a law already in place which makes the gun transaction illegal, what does a further law do? Make it twice as illegal?
Enforcement of existing laws or increased penalties for breaching existing laws seems really the only solution.
What about states that allow gun shows and sales at flea markets without background checks ?
QUOTE(Pie @ Oct 11 2005, 10:26 AM)
What about states that allow gun shows and sales at flea markets without background checks ?
I can speak only for Missouri, Pie. In the case of a private sale where no dealer is involved, if one individual wants to sell another individual a handgun, then the potential buyer of that gun must acquire a "Handgun Purchase Permit" from the sheriffs’ dept. A background check is done on the buyer at that time. I have gone to many a gunshow with permit in hand, just in case I fine a pistol or revolver to buy. The permit is good for 30 days from time of issue.
In the case of long guns, There is no regulatory stipulation. If my friend down the street wants to buy a shotgun that I have...I just sell it to him. This is common in most states regarding long guns. This changes if the buyer or seller is out of state. Then an FFL license holder must be involved in the transaction.
Stephen, why don't you explain for everyone how concealed carry works in Missouri? I mean, the procedure for allowing someone to carry? And I wonder how or if the laws and procedures differ in other states that allow it.
QUOTE(MushroomCloud @ Oct 13 2005, 02:47 AM)
Stephen, why don't you explain for everyone how concealed carry works in Missouri? I mean, the procedure for allowing someone to carry? And I wonder how or if the laws and procedures differ in other states that allow it.
Might I suggest going to the #1 site on the "Net". This has the laws and regulations of every state that offers concealed carry plus other gun laws.
packing.org
Good idea. Thanks.
QUOTE
What about states that allow gun shows and sales at flea markets without background checks ?
The vast majority of gun sales at gun shows involve purchases from licensed dealers at the show, and hence involve a Federal background check and BATFE form 4473 just like sales at a gun store. In states that allow private sales, some do occur at gun shows, but are not by any means limited to gun shows. The most common type of private sale is certainly commerce among family and friends, i.e. my dad sells a gun to me, my shooting buddy is upgrading to a new rifle and sells his old one to me, etc. I also regularly see guns in the classifieds around here, but handgun sales do require a background check first.
Very few guns used in crimes are purchased at gun shows; I think the figure I've seen is 0.7%, and this includes the background-checked sales from licensed dealers.
Thanks for the link Stephen. Because I am terrified of guns, I am completely ignorant regarding the laws. Went to the site and viewed laws in CA and NV.
(I live on the boarder of the two states.) Wow, there are lots of restrictions there.
Thanks for some well needed education; definitely shaping my views differently.
Hope more people like me access that site!
(I live on the boarder of the two states.) Wow, there are lots of restrictions there.
Thanks for some well needed education; definitely shaping my views differently.
Hope more people like me access that site!
Today's poll: express your opinion.
Should the House of Representatives pass legislation shielding gun manufacturers, dealers and importers from lawsuits?
http://capitalnews.org/index.asp
Total Votes: 268
yes 76%
no 24%
The Senate passed legislation a few months ago. Now the House will take it up this week.
Should the House of Representatives pass legislation shielding gun manufacturers, dealers and importers from lawsuits?
http://capitalnews.org/index.asp
Total Votes: 268
yes 76%
no 24%
The Senate passed legislation a few months ago. Now the House will take it up this week.
New Anti-Gun Control Law Set for Alaska
Updated 4:08 AM ET October 17, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8d9lo780&src=ap
By MATT VOLZ
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) - Starting Wednesday, handgun owners won't need permits to carry concealed weapons in the seven Alaska cities where they're still required. There also will be no more restrictions on keeping a firearm in a vehicle.
A new state anti-gun control law that goes into effect will essentially bar municipalities from passing gun laws that are more restrictive than state law.
The National Rifle Association, which helped Republican state Rep. Mike Chenault write the legislation, says except for the concealed weapon permit requirements, most Alaska city and state gun laws are the same.
What the NRA wants to do is prevent cities from passing more restrictive laws in the future. It calls it state pre-emption, and Alaska will be the 44th state to have such a law on its books.
"We are looking to make it uniform to all 50 states," said NRA spokeswoman Kelly Hobbs. "Without it, it creates an unfair, inconsistent and confusing patchwork of local firearm ordinances."
But Alaska police chiefs worry about no longer being able to enforce laws banning guns from public buildings, such as city halls.
The new law would allow cities to keep guns out of places beyond a restricted access point, such as a metal detector, but the chiefs say their cities can't afford the staff or equipment.
"There are lots of people, myself included, we really value our constitutional rights," said Anchorage Police Chief Walter Monegan. "But if we had the same enthusiasm to also support our constitutional responsibilities, then I would be less concerned over this issue."
Chenault argues that even though state law now does not specifically prohibit weapons in municipal buildings, it does prohibit them in state buildings, so a municipal law wouldn't be considered more restrictive. He acknowledged, however, that it may take a court challenge to see if he's right.
Updated 4:08 AM ET October 17, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8d9lo780&src=ap
By MATT VOLZ
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) - Starting Wednesday, handgun owners won't need permits to carry concealed weapons in the seven Alaska cities where they're still required. There also will be no more restrictions on keeping a firearm in a vehicle.
A new state anti-gun control law that goes into effect will essentially bar municipalities from passing gun laws that are more restrictive than state law.
The National Rifle Association, which helped Republican state Rep. Mike Chenault write the legislation, says except for the concealed weapon permit requirements, most Alaska city and state gun laws are the same.
What the NRA wants to do is prevent cities from passing more restrictive laws in the future. It calls it state pre-emption, and Alaska will be the 44th state to have such a law on its books.
"We are looking to make it uniform to all 50 states," said NRA spokeswoman Kelly Hobbs. "Without it, it creates an unfair, inconsistent and confusing patchwork of local firearm ordinances."
But Alaska police chiefs worry about no longer being able to enforce laws banning guns from public buildings, such as city halls.
The new law would allow cities to keep guns out of places beyond a restricted access point, such as a metal detector, but the chiefs say their cities can't afford the staff or equipment.
"There are lots of people, myself included, we really value our constitutional rights," said Anchorage Police Chief Walter Monegan. "But if we had the same enthusiasm to also support our constitutional responsibilities, then I would be less concerned over this issue."
Chenault argues that even though state law now does not specifically prohibit weapons in municipal buildings, it does prohibit them in state buildings, so a municipal law wouldn't be considered more restrictive. He acknowledged, however, that it may take a court challenge to see if he's right.
QUOTE
A new state anti-gun control law that goes into effect will essentially bar municipalities from passing gun laws that are more restrictive than state law.
The National Rifle Association, which helped Republican state Rep. Mike Chenault write the legislation, says except for the concealed weapon permit requirements, most Alaska city and state gun laws are the same.
The National Rifle Association, which helped Republican state Rep. Mike Chenault write the legislation, says except for the concealed weapon permit requirements, most Alaska city and state gun laws are the same.
This brings Alaska into line with most other pro-gun states, which is to say at least half the country. FWIW, NC's preemption law was passed by Democrats and signed by our pro-gun Democratic governor.
Alaska is now one of two states that doesn't require a permit to carry a gun for lawful purposes; the other is Vermont, which has not had any problems at all with it. And Howard Dean, former Governor of Vermont, does happen to be a Dem...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.