Gun Control Supporters. What is YOUR Wish List of Reasonable Gun Control?

Every time there is a "Mass Shooting" there is an outcry for government to "do something" to save lives.

When asked what, exactly, the government is supposed to do; the answer is almost always "reasonable gun control." (Almost, because some prefer that no one but police and government forces possess guns.)

The problem with the cry for "reasonable gun control" is that there are all sorts of responses, and all sorts of argument for why each view is "reasonable."

Some examples include: universal registration, stricter/more comprehensive background checks, licensing to own as well as to carry, age restrictions, prohibitions of "certain types" of guns, required training certification, etc. etc.

I chose NOT to list a Poll, because I want to see what each Forum member would like to see, and exactly how they think their list will prevent, much less eliminate gun violence.

It would help if you also provide an explanation of how your list would NOT violate the Second Amendment's prohibition on infringement of the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

I and others who disagree with some or all of the suggestions may challenge/question your suggestions, but I would prefer rational responses without rancor from all parties.

Let's see how this goes.

So here are the three questions for gun control advocates:

1. What is your wish-list of reasonable gun control measures?

2. How would each of your suggestions reduce and/or prevent future mass shootings, and other gun-related violence?

3. How would you specifically enforce each of these regulations or laws?

Gun rights supporters...

Address your responses specifically to the answers to these questions provided by gun control advocates; i.e. what suggestions are acceptable or unacceptable and why.

ALL members please try to refrain from hyperbole, ad hominin, or any other deflections from the issue.

Maybe, just maybe those of us on both sides might actually reach some consensus on what constitutes reasonable gun regulation.

Thank you.

1) I would like a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 20 years for the possession of a gun by a prohibited person.

2) A large portion of violent crime is committed by repeat offenders. Instead of waiting for them to claim their next victim, this law would allow putting them away before that happens.

3) To help gain public support, from those that see something and say something, I would include a bounty of $100 for a tip leading to such an arrest.

1. State-issued permit w/ firearm training required to own, buy and sell firearms.
2. Minimum age required to own, buy and sell is 21.
3. Universal background check required on sale of all firearms by all dealers.
4. 48 hour waiting period required (ex., prevention of suicide), and sales record mandated to be kept.
5. Felons, those with domestic violence charges / active restraining orders, and those with debilitating mental illnesses prevented from owning firearms
6. Mandatory sentencing laws for possession of firearms by an individual who cannot legal own a firearm

7. Reinstatement of Federal Assault Weapons Ban legislation
8. Immunity for gun manufacturers from lawsuits rescinded
9. Penalties imposed for possession of firearms in schools, government buildings, public transit, and other buildings/properties accessible to the public where the property owner posts clearly visible signage barring firearms (concert venues, bars, theme parks, etc.)

I think those who want sensible gun control ought to learn about the laws already on the books and stop scapegoating responsible law abiding gun owners and/or the "evil" NRA for these mass killings.

I am for mandatory gun safes to be purchased at the time one buys their first gun. This certificate of purchase should be authenticated by the NICS before one gets to take their gun(s) home.
No grandfathering here for gun safes either. If one's gun is found to be used by their child or anyone else not authorized while in the process of a crime, mandatory jail time, confiscation of their guns because IMO, their negligence makes them complicit in the crime.

And lastly... those who are doing NICS can only do a good job if they get ALL the necessary information by professionals. How else is NICS supposed to know who should not have a gun or be able to buy a gun?
I am a firm believer in prevention. See something, Say something cannot be emphasized enough. The public and family members, and even LE needs to stop being so apathetic when they have been told or hear a violent threat being made by potential killers/mass killers.

Raising the age for guy purchase is a slippery slope. If we do that, we need to raise the age for the military. If we allow people to have a gun in the military at age 18, then why can't they buy a gun at 18?

brothern said:

1. State-issued permit w/ firearm training required to own, buy and sell firearms.
2. Minimum age required to own, buy and sell is 21.
3. Universal background check required on sale of all firearms by all dealers.
4. 48 hour waiting period required (ex., prevention of suicide), and sales record mandated to be kept.
5. Felons, those with domestic violence charges / active restraining orders, and those with debilitating mental illnesses prevented from owning firearms
6. Mandatory sentencing laws for possession of firearms by an individual who cannot legal own a firearm

7. Reinstatement of Federal Assault Weapons Ban legislation
8. Immunity for gun manufacturers from lawsuits rescinded
9. Penalties imposed for possession of firearms in schools, government buildings, public transit, and other buildings/properties accessible to the public where the property owner posts clearly visible signage barring firearms (concert venues, bars, theme parks, etc.)

Click to expand...

- Restricts individuals we do not want own, buying or selling firearms from doing so
- Forces firearm education and handling
- Means to punish individuals who circumvent laws

- Forces gun manufacturers to take responsibility over their products, e.g., encourages inclusion of child safety locks on products
(Edit: If I, in my industry, has to assume product liability over some idiot who some how manages hurts himself with electronics, I do not understand why the gun mfg industry gets a statutory free pass.)
- Increases difficulty of obtaining weapons that may be used in mass shootings
- Means to punish individuals who put others at risk in public settings

I do not proscribe to the reading of the Second Amendment in Heller. There is no "untouchable" right to possess firearms (or explosives, blades, etc.) granted by the Constitution without consideration of public safety.

brothern said:

1. State-issued permit w/ firearm training required to own, buy and sell firearms.
2. Minimum age required to own, buy and sell is 21.
3. Universal background check required on sale of all firearms by all dealers.
4. 48 hour waiting period required (ex., prevention of suicide), and sales record mandated to be kept.
5. Felons, those with domestic violence charges / active restraining orders, and those with debilitating mental illnesses prevented from owning firearms
6. Mandatory sentencing laws for possession of firearms by an individual who cannot legal own a firearm

7. Reinstatement of Federal Assault Weapons Ban legislation
8. Immunity for gun manufacturers from lawsuits rescinded
9. Penalties imposed for possession of firearms in schools, government buildings, public transit, and other buildings/properties accessible to the public where the property owner posts clearly visible signage barring firearms (concert venues, bars, theme parks, etc.)

Click to expand...

I like most of this. I would add mandatory training, gun locks and license is required to buy ammo. Separate license for each gun type

trixare4kids said:

I think those who want sensible gun control ought to learn about the laws already on the books ...

Click to expand...

Yea, pretty sure that my list is not recognized in full by even the farthest reaching gun control jurisdictions in the United States.

brothern said:

Yea, pretty sure that my list is not recognized in full by even the farthest reaching gun control jurisdictions in the United States.

Click to expand...

Would you please expound on your point? Or were you being sarcastic?

trixare4kids said:

Would you please expound on your point? Or were you being sarcastic?

Click to expand...

Not at all being sarcastic. Name a state that covers my points 1-6 and 9. You will be unable to, because no such state exists. (The other two points are federal legislation.)

Captain Adverse said:

Every time there is a "Mass Shooting" there is an outcry for government to "do something" to save lives.

When asked what, exactly, the government is supposed to do; the answer is almost always "reasonable gun control." (Almost, because some prefer that no one but police and government forces possess guns.)

The problem with the cry for "reasonable gun control" is that there are all sorts of responses, and all sorts of argument for why each view is "reasonable."

Some examples include: universal registration, stricter/more comprehensive background checks, licensing to own as well as to carry, age restrictions, prohibitions of "certain types" of guns, required training certification, etc. etc.

I chose NOT to list a Poll, because I want to see what each Forum member would like to see, and exactly how they think their list will prevent, much less eliminate gun violence.

It would help if you also provide an explanation of how your list would NOT violate the Second Amendment's prohibition on infringement of the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

I and others who disagree with some or all of the suggestions may challenge/question your suggestions, but I would prefer rational responses without rancor from all parties.

Let's see how this goes.

So here are the three questions for gun control advocates:

1. What is your wish-list of reasonable gun control measures?

2. How would each of your suggestions reduce and/or prevent future mass shootings, and other gun-related violence?

3. How would you specifically enforce each of these regulations or laws?

Gun rights supporters...

Address your responses specifically to the answers to these questions provided by gun control advocates; i.e. what suggestions are acceptable or unacceptable and why.

ALL members please try to refrain from hyperbole, ad hominin, or any other deflections from the issue.

Maybe, just maybe those of us on both sides might actually reach some consensus on what constitutes reasonable gun regulation.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

I would remove the restrictions on CDC funding to research the problem. This would give us alot more info to work on.

I would also create a new mental health training program for gun vendors, focusing on identifying warning signs and erratic behavior.

I would add a title to every fire arm sold in the US, like a car title, this one is to combat people buying guns legally and selling them to criminals like the cartels and and gangs.

I would create a gun safety course and offer it as an elective in every highschool.

I would put a mental health specialist in every school to offer counseling and spot unstable kids.

I would end the war on drugs that is the underlying root cause for many communities history of violence.

I would lift the restrictions on felons not being able to own a gun legally, this makes them seek out black market weapons we cant easily tie to them should they use it.

I would require non lethal ammunition to be used within city limits for personal protection.

And I would make it to where if a child gains access to your weapon and either uses it accidentally or with purpose, you would be charged with the crime the child would be if they were an adult. Ie manslaughter, murder, assault witha deadly weapon and so forth.

I actually think gun bans, or banning anything is counter productive and just creates a black market adding to our problems. And if background checks did anything to help we would have seen results by now.

brothern said:

Not at all being sarcastic. Name a state that covers my points 1-6 and 9. You will be unable to, because no such state exists. (The other two points are federal legislation.)

Click to expand...

OK, but what does your proposed list have to do with what I originally wrote?

I think those who want sensible gun control ought to learn about the laws already on the books ...

Click to expand...

ThoughtEx. said:

I would remove the restrictions on CDC funding to research the problem. This would give us alot more info to work on.

I would also create a new mental health training program for gun vendors, focusing on identifying warning signs and erratic behavior.

I would add a title to every fire arm sold in the US, like a car title, this one is to combat people buying guns legally and selling them to criminals like the cartels and and gangs.

I would create a gun safety course and offer it as an elective in every highschool.

I would put a mental health specialist in every school to offer counseling and spot unstable kids.

I would end the war on drugs that is the underlying root cause for many communities history of violence.

I would lift the restrictions on felons not being able to own a gun legally, this makes them seek out black market weapons we cant easily tie to them should they use it.

I would require non lethal ammunition to be used within city limits for personal protection.

And I would make it to where if a child gains access to your weapon and either uses it accidentally or with purpose, you would be charged with the crime the child would be if they were an adult. Ie manslaughter, murder, assault witha deadly weapon and so forth.

I actually think gun bans, or banning anything is counter productive and just creates a black market adding to our problems. And if background checks did anything to help we would have seen results by now.

Click to expand...

A lot of these are really good ideas.

Disarm the police. Disarm the military. Disarm all government agencies. Disarm all civilians. Issue "Hug" certificates to all citizens, illegal aliens and everyone else living in this country. When a violent person shows up citizens would be able to present that person with a personalized hug certificate thus bringing peace, joy and happiness to not only that person but to the world at large.

brothern said:

1. State-issued permit w/ firearm training required to own, buy and sell firearms....

Click to expand...

Thank you. I'd like to address your list item by item. Green means I agree. Yellow means neutral or opposed in part. Red means I disagree.

1. State-issued permit w/ firearm training required to own, buy and sell firearms.

NO for bolded, YES for underlined IMO the bolded above is the first step to registration, because it sets up a database initially at State level, but IMO leading inevitably to something like the FBI's NCIC, only this time providing a list of all persons who are likely to own weapons.

Currently background check forms require identification of type of weapon being purchased. While we are assured that it is not used to identity people who have what weapons...I think that is being overly trusting.

However, I agree with the underlined item. I see no problem with any person wishing to purchase a firearm having proof they have been trained in safety and use. As long as this is not used as some sort of ID or tracking requirement, just a training certification like completion of drivers training.

2. Minimum age required to own, buy and sell is 21.

Sorry, but NO! Not as long as the Selective Service requirement also remains at 18 years of age, and 18 remains the age to legally vote. If someone is too young to own a personal firearm, then they are too young to serve in the military, or police forces, and remain too immature to vote. Since I fought for the right to be treated as an adult at 18 if I could be drafted for was at 18...You can see I cannot support this restriction.

3. Universal background check required on sale of all firearms by all dealers.

Neutral. I believe this already exists.

4. 48 hour waiting period required (ex., prevention of suicide), and sales record mandated to be kept.

YES. I don't have a problem with this. Although I doubt it would have much real effect on suicides simply because most people who are at that level. Still, if it has some small effect, it's a minor roadblock I can accept.

5. Felons, those with domestic violence charges / active restraining orders, and those with debilitating mental illnesses prevented from owning firearms.

Neutral I also believe this is already in effect. However. I am on record as advocating a return of ALL individual rights when any person has successfully completed all the terms of their criminal conviction.

6. Mandatory sentencing laws for possession of firearms by an individual who cannot legal own a firearm.

NO. I never support "mandatory sentencing laws." IMO judges should have wide discretion within sentencing maximums and minimums on a case by case basis. One shoe fits all is never a good idea as each criminal case is different.

7. Reinstatement of Federal Assault Weapons Ban legislation.

NO. "Assault Weapon" is a label being placed on any weapon that "looks scary" and might have the capability of being used effectively against both police and military forces which is the primary purpose of being armed under the Second Amendment.

8. Immunity for gun manufacturers from lawsuits rescinded.

NO. That is punishing the toolmaker for abuse by the took user.

Might as well allow lawsuits for th car manufacturer when someone uses a car or truck to mow people down.

9. Penalties imposed for possession of firearms in schools, government buildings, public transit, and other buildings/properties accessible to the public where the property owner posts clearly visible signage barring firearms (concert venues, bars, theme parks, etc.).

YES. This is a reasonable and rational law punishing for intentional acts in violation of posted law.

vegas giants said:

I like most of this. I would add mandatory training, gun locks and license is required to buy ammo. Separate license for each gun type

Click to expand...

Thank you for your reply. I'd like to address your suggestions one by one. Green means I agree. Yellow means neutral or opposed in part. Red means I disagree.

1. Mandatory training.

YES. I already agree that safety and proper use training would be in keeping with the Second Amendment. (See my reply in post #14)

2. Gun locks.

Neutral. I am not sure the value of gun locks. I am certainly not willing to force this on a citizen who is allowed either open carry or concealed carry, as it defeats the whole purpose if confronted in a situation when quick access is the difference between life and death. Do police walk around with gun locks? However, in the home, especially when dealing with a storage of weapons? Perhaps or perhaps a weapons safe.

3. License to buy ammo.

NO. This allows for government restrictions on the amount an individual can possess, would require all sorts of paperwork and agency expense requiring licensing fees, and is an unnecessary restriction/cost to the legal owner/user.

ThoughtEx. said:

I would remove ... I actually think gun bans, or banning anything is counter productive and just creates a black market adding to our problems. And if background checks did anything to help we would have seen results by now.

Click to expand...

Thank for your reply. I'd like to address your list item by item. Green means I agree. Yellow means neutral or opposed in part. Red means I disagree.

1. I would remove the restrictions on CDC funding to research the problem. This would give us alot more info to work on.

YES. I agree that more research on causes would definitely help with designing methods of prevention by addressing roots rather than the tools. I would caution us to be careful of allowing that research to be focused on gun violence, rather than the causes of violence of any kinds, and so used to push the control agenda rather than seeking to prevent the behavior itself.

2. I would also create a new mental health training program for gun vendors, focusing on identifying warning signs and erratic behavior.

Neutral. I am not sure how helpful teaching average joe citizen who happens to be a gun dealer mental health training when licensed professionals in the field of mental health fail in this themselves.

3. I would add a title to every fire arm sold in the US, like a car title, this one is to combat people buying guns legally and selling them to criminals like the cartels and and gangs.

NO. This is literally a form of gun registration. Consider that having a "title" to a weapon registered with some State agency would also be a marker in the event confiscation legislation ever comes into being.

4. I would create a gun safety course and offer it as an elective in every high school.

YES. Although some people would object to this training in school as either a waste of funds (like happened with school drivers ed. course in most states) or a shocking violation of parental ethics and rights...even if only offered as an elective.

5. I would put a mental health specialist in every school to offer counseling and spot unstable kids.

Neutral. We already have school guidance counselors in many school systems, and the jury seems out on how effective they are in dealing with student problems.

6. I would end the war on drugs that is the underlying root cause for many communities history of violence.

YES. I am already on record for this.

7. I would lift the restrictions on felons not being able to own a gun legally, this makes them seek out black market weapons we cant easily tie to them should they use it.

YES. I am already on record for this as well. Do the time, paid for the crime, return to full citizenship with all rights reinstated.

8. I would require non lethal ammunition to be used within city limits for personal protection.

NO. The people who are shooting at you won't be using non-lethal ammunition. If you have to pull a weapon then IMO there should be no half-measures.

9. And I would make it to where if a child gains access to your weapon and either uses it accidentally or with purpose, you would be charged with the crime the child would be if they were an adult. Ie manslaughter, murder, assault with a deadly weapon and so forth.

Neutral. I might agree with manslaughter based on gross negligence in the safe keeping of your firearm, but it would all depend on the case by case circumstances.

Captain Adverse said:

Thank for your reply. I'd like to address your list item by item. Green means I agree. Yellow means neutral or opposed in part. Red means I disagree.

I would also create a new mental health training program for gun vendors, focusing on identifying warning signs and erratic behavior.

Neutral. I am not sure how helpful teaching average joe citizen who happens to be a gun dealer mental health training when licensed professionals in the field of mental health fail in this themselves.

I would add a title to every fire arm sold in the US, like a car title, this one is to combat people buying guns legally and selling them to criminals like the cartels and and gangs.

NO. This is literally a form of gun registration. Consider that having a "title" to a weapon registered with some State agency would also be a marker in the event confiscation legislation ever comes into being.

I would put a mental health specialist in every school to offer counseling and spot unstable kids.

Neutral. We already have school guidance counselors in many school systems, and the jury seems out on how effective they are in dealing with student problems/

I would require non lethal ammunition to be used within city limits for personal protection.

NO. The people who are shooting at you won't be using non-lethal ammunition. If you have to pull a weapon then IMO there should be no half-measures.

And I would make it to where if a child gains access to your weapon and either uses it accidentally or with purpose, you would be charged with the crime the child would be if they were an adult. Ie manslaughter, murder, assault with a deadly weapon and so forth.

Neutral. I might agree with manslaughter based on gross negligence in the safe keeping of your firearm, but it would all depend on the case by case circumstances.

Click to expand...

The benefit to giving gun vendors training in spotting unstable individuals is not a be all end all solution, but it is a first line of defense so to speak. Much like a pharmacist who is on the lookout for abusers and addicts, gun vendors are in a position to encounter individuals that have not been in exposed to a licensed health professional. The reason so many people slip by the licensed is that we operate on a voluntary system, they have to seek help. Giving gun vendors training to spot an unstable individual isn't going to work everytime, sociopaths for instance aren't easy to pick out, but it does add a chance of stopping something before it starts without placing unnecessary strain on the business, or restrictions on individual rights.

Yes, it is a type of gun registration. Which would not be unconstitutional, and the benefit of combating individuals who are selling weapons on the black market outweighs the very low risk of confiscation. Do I wish it were not necessary? Yes, but the facts still remain, every gun used illegally was at some point purchased legally and then sold. If you like we can seal the records in every state, and require a warrant to examine them in specific cases that have to deal with organized or gang style crime. I think that is a fair compromise.

I didn't have a school guidance counselor in my elementary, or high school. And I'm not talking about a guidance counselor in any event, but a child development psychologist tasked with the children's mental health development and that alone, guidance counselors as far as I know just help you with college applications. I couldn't tell you what they do actually, never had one.

Non lethal ammunition within city limits would drastically cut down on accidental deaths, which is in my mind a larger problem than violent crime. A rubber bullet or bean bag won't go through the walls and hit the neighbor kid or travel across the street and kill a bystander. While at the same time provide more stopping power than either a taser or knife. Prison guards use them to break up prison riots, and haven't heard them complain about ineffectiveness. Everyone has the right to defend themselves, this is a fair compromise for those seeking weapon bans due to accidental deaths that occur from negligence or ineptitude.

I can accept manslaughter on a case by case basis.

ThoughtEx. said:

Yes, it is a type of gun registration. Which would not be unconstitutional...I think that is a fair compromise.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. You title a car. You title a house. Ownership of neither of these items is specifically protected from infringement as a Constitutional right. (Edit: Aside from the 4th Amendment protection against search and seizure which still allows the taking via legal means).

IMO you don't "title" any right, because by titling it you give the government the ability to regulate, and in the case of weapons, deprive you of it.

ThoughtEx. said:

Non lethal ammunition within city limits would drastically cut down on accidental deaths, which is in my mind a larger problem than violent crime. A rubber bullet or bean bag won't go through the walls and hit the neighbor kid or travel across the street and kill a bystander. While at the same time provide more stopping power than either a taser or knife. Prison guards use them to break up prison riots, and haven't heard them complain about ineffectiveness. Everyone has the right to defend themselves, this is a fair compromise for those seeking weapon bans due to accidental deaths that occur from negligence or ineptitude.

Click to expand...

IMO that is a matter for the gun owner, who is fully responsible for what he does or does not do with his weapons. If someone breaks into my home I am not going to discuss his intentions and ask if he would like to be shot by a regular or non-lethal bullet.

Meanwhile, IMO locks and gun safes should handle most of your concerns.

Captain Adverse said:

I respectfully disagree. You title a car. You title a house. Ownership of neither of these items is protected as a Constitutional right.

IMO you don't "title" any right, because by titling it you give the government the ability to regulate and seize it.



IMO that is a matter for the gun owner, who is fully responsible for what he does or does not do with his weapons. If someone breaks into my home I am not going to discuss his intentions and ask if he would like to be shot by a regular or non-lethal bullet.

Meanwhile, IMO locks and gun safes should handle most of your concerns.

Click to expand...

You register to vote

vegas giants said:

You register to vote

Click to expand...

...and we have had all sorts of methods to prevent people from exercising that right haven't we?

From poll taxes, to reading and writing requirements, etc.

There are all sorts of arguments which can be made about the difference between voting and the right to keep and bear arms.

But that is not the issue in this thread. Sorry.

Captain Adverse said:

...and we have had all sorts of methods to prevent people from exercising that right haven't we?

From poll taxes, to reading and writing requirements, etc.

There are all sorts of arguments which can be made about the difference between voting and the right to keep and bear arms.

But that is not the issue in this thread. Sorry.

Click to expand...

If you can register one right you can register another which is my only point.

Captain Adverse said:

I respectfully disagree. You title a car. You title a house. Ownership of neither of these items is specifically protected as a Constitutional right. (Edit: Aside from the 4th Amendment protection against search and seizure which still allows the taking via legal means).

IMO you don't "title" any right, because by titling it you give the government the ability to regulate, and in the case of weapons, deprive you of it.



IMO that is a matter for the gun owner, who is fully responsible for what he does or does not do with his weapons. If someone breaks into my home I am not going to discuss his intentions and ask if he would like to be shot by a regular or non-lethal bullet.

Meanwhile, IMO locks and gun safes should handle most of your concerns.

Click to expand...

You would be mistaken on home ownership and cars.

The fifth amendment isn't just to protect you against self incrimination.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Click to expand...

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –

Click to expand...

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”

Click to expand...

Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”

Click to expand...

Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”

Click to expand...

By no means discuss his intentions, but give this a read and consider the possibility that the benefit of non lethal ammunition outweighs the risk of injury, when in most cases the gun is used for intimidation.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

And locks and safes are a great idea, hard to enforce those laws without violating privacy. Where as if you never fire your gun in town, there is no way to really enforce non lethal ammo, however if you do and a stray hits an unintended person, it provides a means of legal action against you that will deter others from using lethal ammo in city limits. Whereas if you're using non lethal rounds, I don't care if you're carrying an M16 full auto, have at it.

My problem has never been with people who intentionally shoot other people, its with the people who are terrible shots and miss.

brothern said:

1. State-issued permit w/ firearm training required to own, buy and sell firearms.
2. Minimum age required to own, buy and sell is 21.
3. Universal background check required on sale of all firearms by all dealers.
4. 48 hour waiting period required (ex., prevention of suicide), and sales record mandated to be kept.
5. Felons, those with domestic violence charges / active restraining orders, and those with debilitating mental illnesses prevented from owning firearms
6. Mandatory sentencing laws for possession of firearms by an individual who cannot legal own a firearm

7. Reinstatement of Federal Assault Weapons Ban legislation
8. Immunity for gun manufacturers from lawsuits rescinded
9. Penalties imposed for possession of firearms in schools, government buildings, public transit, and other buildings/properties accessible to the public where the property owner posts clearly visible signage barring firearms (concert venues, bars, theme parks, etc.)

Click to expand...

Kinda with you on most ideas except #9 you are creating gun free zones, that’s we’re the majority of these shootings happen, you gotta admit that!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have just three suggestions.

1. Require each individual documented as mentally ill(I would include anyone arrested for domestic violence more then once) be reported to the national database used for background checks.

2. Reform the criminal justice system and how it deals with violent offenders. We need truth in sentencing laws. if someone is sentenced to 10 years in prison for a voilent offense, then that person should serve the entire 10 years. And we should eliminate parole or probation for violent crimes. Most who commit gun violence are either mentally ill or career criminals.

3. Enforce the existing gun laws already on the books.

ThoughtEx. said:

You would be mistaken on home ownership and cars.

The fifth amendment isn't just to protect you against self incrimination.

Click to expand...

Responded via private message, as the 5th Amendment is not in play here...and this is a slight diversion from the OP.