Originally Posted by New Era
@driveway
Some real good ideas here, but some comments as someone with a little insight into gun ownership and the gun culture in the US.
1. Repeal 2nd amendment
That just isn't possible. Just too many gun owners who vote, and too powerful lobbies that protect those rights. You'd have a better chance of repealing the constitution itself. I think the better approach is to more clearly define the 2nd amendment and remove all interpretation from the clause. More clearly define what is an arm, and more importantly, what is in support of the militia. A clearer understanding of the amendment would go a long way to establishing law to regulate weapons.
2. Ban all firearms which are not shotguns or hunting rifles. A hunting rifle being defined as a rifles which have an English or straight stock, and are semi automatic only.
What does a stock have to do with anything? Is the AR frame really that scary? Some people prefer the adjustable nature of the AR stock and the flexibility it allows in finding a better location in the shoulder pocket and more comfortable cheek weld. Some people like the extras you can attach to the hand guard or rail, making for a better grip on the weapon. You've really lost me here, and I think gun enthusiasts will be especially torqued. I don't think the stock has any impact on the killing power of a weapon and is clear over-reach in trying to establish a standard.
I think the very last thing you mentioned should be the controlling factor. Restrictions should be placed on the action of the weapon. Semi-automatics can be just as dangerous as a full auto in the hands of a well trained individual. Full auto, or spray and pray, has no function in civilian applications. Semi-auto also provides no value more than convenience and add to the ability to get more rounds down range quicker. I would say that civilian weapons should be restricted to a single shot bolt action, requiring a physical cycling of weapon rather than a mechanical cycle. This would greatly limit the number of rounds that could be put down range.
3. Ban magazines which hold more than 8 cartridges.
Don't disagree, but why 8? Most civilian weapons should be used for hunting or self-defense. With proper pistol training you should be putting three shots center mass when you draw that weapon. So three rounds is probably all you need. Maybe make it six for kicks at the cat. For a long gun, three or four rounds seems more than reasonable. For a civilian application, one-shot-one-kill should be the mantra and how people should be trained.
4. Ban bump stocks or any modification designed to increase fire rate or magazine capacity.
If you restrict civilian long rifles to bolt action all of these issues go away.
5. Require a license to purchase a weapon, licenses require 96 hours of lessons. License requires re-training every 4 years.
I agree with this, but 96 hours is crazy. What are you going to do in 96 hours? That's 12 full days of training, or 32 evening classes. Unless you're trying to use this as a deterrent to gun ownership I don't think this is wise.
6. Obtaining a firearms license is considered the holder permanently waiving their right to have their person or property searched without a warrant. This condition is for life, even if the firearms license lapses.
Not just no, but hell no. That is quite the slippery slope you're establishing there. Even suggesting this would guarantee the failure of any legislation trying to put in place common sense restrictions on firearms. You're demanding that people give up their basic human rights so they can be afforded another. That is a big no.
7. Maximum ownership of 4 firearms per license.
Why? I can understand the desire to limit firearms and prevent the build up of armories, but this is again extreme. To me, guns are tools. You use a specific weapon for a specific purpose. Certain game requires a certain caliber to bring down. Depending on your hunting habits, that could be multiple weapons right there. I am also a big believer in having a redundant backup weapon for each one you own, so that also has to come into play and be considered in a count. I think 4 weapons is again, extreme. Then again, if you go to a bolt action restriction, it would change an individual's personal protection need to a long gun, a shot gun, a full pistol, and a conceal pistol, so four would be manageable. Maybe restrict to four types of weapons, but then allow for redundancy to 8 total weapons.
8. Ban the production, sale, and ownership of empty cartridges, gunpowder, and bullets. (Ban do-it-yourself ammunition).
Why? I'm not a reloader myself, but I know lots of people who are because they save money and get a better product. Why would this restriction have any traction in changing gun ownership or responsibility? Seems almost counter to what the goal.
9. Limit ammunition purchases per license to 250 per year. Additional purchases are allowed if an equivalent number of spent casings are returned.
Again, why? What's it matter if someone is sitting on 100,000 rounds? Its their money, its their space they eat up, its their choice. If there is a restriction on action and magazine size, what does it matter how many rounds an individual may possess?
10. Limit the number of firearms dealers to 2 per county.
This is a silly restriction. Considering the size of some counties in the US, this is just not practical. In Arizona alone there are three counties the size of Taiwan, or larger. Do you think it makes any sense to have that type of restriction? That is also counter to pretty much everything America stands for, as most gun shops are small businesses and business owners.
11. Weapons must be stored locked, separate from ammunition. Owners must submit to two random inspections per year by ATF. Inspections can happen anytime 24/7.
What you're suggesting is ATF becoming the Gestapo and having the right to storm in and inspect your papers. This is exactly why Americans are against a gun registry, simply because they don't believe they can trust their government and that they will over step their authority. I think there should be restrictions on the storage of weapons and ammunition, and I think people should be checked for compliance. But there has to be some type of system that is not quite so draconian.
12. Buyback/amnesty program for currently owned weapons.
This is always a good idea, but where does the money come from? What is the benefit and what is the penalty? IS a tax break or credit a better idea?
13. No weapons qualify for ‘grandfather’ status.
Completely agree. Grandfather clauses have always rubbed me the wrong way. I hate people that get exceptions for some goofy reason. All should comply.
|