Why not go after the criminals instead?

Why do innocent citizens (at their own expense) have to keep proving their innocence?

Aren't these recommendations an infringement on the rights of the legal gun owner?

Anyone who commits a crime with a gun has their sentence doubled with no hope of parole. Then we will keep the criminals off the street twice as long, they will think twice about using the gun and after they are put back on the street, if they commit another crime with a gun, the sentence is again doubled.

The reason we have problems with guns is because we allow criminals on the streets with them. Law abiding citizens don't have a problem with guns on the street. The moment they attempt a crime, they are from then on, a criminal.

A database of criminals which is kept by the federal agency will be easily accessed and any store owner, gun show seller or inquisitive individual, can quickly look at that database and if the name is not on there, sell them a gun.

We have such databases for sex offenders, why not one for gun criminals? If your name is looked up and it's not there, no harm, no foul.

Registration of guns? That's an infringement on my rights. And what does that tell anyone anyway? Now we know where the guns are and we still don't know where the criminals who use them are. Well, they register your car, why not then your gun too? Driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a right, big difference.

No gun ownership for individuals with history of mental illness. Why punish legal citizens who just happen to have relatives with mental issues? And if a guy on meds misses a dosage and goes off the handle, even a knife or pipe bomb will do the trick.

If I get shot with 100 rounds instead of 10, what difference does it make?

I see too many people settling themselves into a false sense of security with all kinds of rules and regulations against lawful citizens when they aren't the problem and the security just isn't there in the long run because the criminals still have their guns and are most likely not registered (unless they were stolen).

Stosh

Very tyrannical proposal.

1. Unnecessary. Why not just confiscate the guns of anybody that is convicted of an offense that would take away their right to bear arms. What you are suggesting is that people prove their innocence every year at their own cost.

2. As above.

3. Basically you are banning guns in that case. Every family has somebody that is mentally ill if you go back far enough.

4. Silly, it won't do much to stop any crime. While the mentally ill who go on rampages are very visible, their true effect on gun violence statistics is almost nil. If you really want to reduce gun violence, let's lock up all violent criminals for life.

5. The first step to confiscation is registration. The only way to confiscate guns is to have a list of all the gun owners.

Most mentally ill people are of no danger to anyone. Your proposals will drive mentally ill people to avoid psychiatric care if at all possible.

If your proposal was modest, Jonathan Swift you are not.

I think #2 is going to be pretty subjective; I would just shop around for a friendly shrink. I am not sure that #3 could even hold up legally and would be very hard to administer; I do not know if folks understand the genetics of mental illness--so I do not think #3 is practical short of a genetic test.

#2 is what you gotta work on. A lot of crazy people go untreated and their is no national registry. So you would punish the folks who sought help and get diagnosed and the crazy families could skate by. My kids are adopted...which crazy family do we use? And if we can't find them I guess we say no?

And what if stupid was just as bad as crazy? Why not an operator's license?

Fun discussion though.

Paying for their own background and psych check is simply a tax on ownership. Just as other suggested.

Far as registration goes....It is property, you register your dog, home, car, and even your person with the government.

Far as getting shot with 10 rounds verse 100......sitting here shaking my head, If the aurora, sandy hook, columbine or Virgina Tech would have been limited to 10 rounds before a longer reload process they would have been stopped much sooner. You have got to see that.

I am sorry if you miss your oppurtunity on a deer because you just needed that 11th round to finally kill it or it takes 2 minutes to reload for 5 seconds of shooting at paper targets.

Yes we are cutting into your personal freedom and right to burn dollar bills at will....You need to see the bigger picture.......Whether we give up a the freedom to own a 200 round people killer or live in a Police state with a couple of LEOs on every corner and one in every school, we are still giving something up.

I will freely give up my guns to keep armed guards out of my kids schools and a LEO guarding my block. Just as Joebob's history lesson points out, The police can be more corrupt than the mob. I have experienced that locally with a detective on the local drug dealers pay role.

(This message has been edited by Basementdweller)

"Paying for their own background and psych check is simply a tax on ownership. Just as other suggested."

Or is it a tax on Constitutional rights? When they start taxing free speech, religion, etc. we will be in serious trouble. I don't think any stretch of the imagination on the part of our founding fathers envisioned taxing any of the Bill of Rights.

"Far as registration goes....It is property, you register your dog, home, car, and even your person with the government."

Dogs, home, car, income, etc. can be taxable, one doesn't need any of them and there's nothing in the Constitution that states you have a right to them.

"Far as getting shot with 10 rounds verse 100......sitting here shaking my head, If the aurora, sandy hook, columbine or Virgina Tech would have been limited to 10 rounds before a longer reload process they would have been stopped much sooner. You have got to see that."

Yep, and carrying a bag of 10-round handguns doesn't make it any less lethal either.

"I am sorry if you miss your oppurtunity on a deer because you just needed that 11th round to finally kill it or it takes 2 minutes to reload for 5 seconds of shooting at paper targets."

Once again, a Constitutional right should not be infringed upon when that's what the Constitution clearly states.

"Yes we are cutting into your personal freedom and right to burn dollar bills at will....You need to see the bigger picture.......Whether we give up a the freedom to own a 200 round people killer or live in a Police state with a couple of LEOs on every corner and one in every school, we are still giving something up."

Giving up rights shouldn't be something to give up to the State.

"I will freely give up my guns to keep armed guards out of my kids schools and a LEO guarding my block. Just as Joebob's history lesson points out, The police can be more corrupt than the mob. I have experienced that locally with a detective on the local drug dealers pay role."

And that merely suggests that a corrupt cop (criminal) has access to guns. Lets go after the criminal not the legal citizen.

A lot of good points, but they all focus on restricting the legal citizen gun owner and does nothing about addressing the criminal who will be more inclined to use the guns for more than shooting deer or paper targets.

Stosh

"Paying for their own background and psych check is simply a tax on ownership. Just as other suggested"

just what part of "shall not be infringed" confuses you?

We do not have to pay for our Rights in this country, priveledges such as driving, and automobile ownership yes, rights such as voting and gun ownership, NO!

1. Complete and on going Background check, paid for by the firearm owner, thinking every other year.

A tax or fee imposed by the government above and beyond that which would be applied to any other consumer product infringes upon the individual's ability to own a firearm and is not constitutional.

2. Mental health evaluations on going, paid for by the firearm owner, every other year.

As with number one, this places a significant barrier to gun ownership that is not constitutional.

3. No gun ownership for families with historys of mental illness.

Based on how prevalent the instances of mental illness are becoming, and that most every family will be affected by mental illness, this is an absolutely tyrannical position.

4. Complete ban on ownership of all semiautomatic firearms with detachable magazines and/or a capacity greater than 10 rounds.

Arbitrary limits on types of firearms owned that look to affect the killing potential of firearms in a way that has a historical precedent for constitutionality but still seems to serve no purpose other than to satisfy the need to "do something".

5. National registry of all firearms....gotta know who has them, right

Terrifying prospect that could be enforced, but that empowers the government in the case that they would deem complete disarmament necessary.



If this isn't the hill to die on politically to prevent tyranny, there won't be a hill to die on literally to defend from tyranny.

Basement, ever heard the phrases "presumption of innocence" and "innocent until proven guilty"?

I like my proposal better. Any felony committed while in possession of a firearm (legal or not): life without parole. Word will get around. The nutcases won't care any more than they do now, but at least it will get the predatory thugs off the streets.

Doubled sentence? Life without Parole? Eeesh...that's whimpy.

Any person convicted of a crime, while possessing a firearm during the commission of the crime, gets a mandatory death sentence.

That'll cull the herd pretty quick.


BTW, most state limit weapons for hunting to 5-6 rounds ... sometimes only 3.(This message has been edited by WasE61)

Yah, once again, da right to travel is a fundamental right. It is not a privilege granted by the state. That includes da right to walk, ride a horse, peddle a bicycle, paddle a canoe, drive a car, or fly a plane. Yeh all need to stop surrendering your rights to da government by calling them "privileges" which da state can take away at a whim.

Basement, hmmmm...

Recurrent background checks, mental health checks, and demonstrated proficiency seem reasonable, paid in some way by enthusiasts directly or through taxes on ammo or some such. I think it would reduce the yahoos as well as catching some problem cases. Da problem yeh have is whether the state can come confiscate your weapons when yeh fail one of the checks. Or do yeh have a licensing thing where yeh can't use without a license? Is that enforceable? Would such a licensing scheme matter to someone mentally ill?

Number three seems tough. I'm not sure we ever want to establish a law which applies to anybody just because of potential genetic proclivity.

Number four, sounds like you're proposing buy-backs and confiscations? Granted, that's a one-time cost rather than a recurring cost, but how would yeh pay for it? I confess I sorta agree that there's no need for detachable magazines for anything from hunting to basic home defense; their utility is limited to extended shoot-outs.

Number five I think would only be useful if yeh established somethin' like TwoCubDad's liability scheme, where yeh have to be able to establish ownership so as to place liability. What's the point of registration in your scheme?

Anyone who commits a crime with a gun has their sentence doubled with no hope of parole.

This is another huge cost, since most crimes are committed by young people, and we'd be incarcerating 'em for a very, very long time. It's also unclear whether young folks think about that, so how much of a real deterrent it would be is an open question. How are yeh goin' to pay for it?

Then there's the zero-tolerance thing. So your son takes an unloaded gun to school to threaten a school bully. Yeh want him to get 10 years for that? Or if WasE61 gets his way, yeh want him to get da hangman's noose?

Beavah

"This is another huge cost, since most crimes are committed by young people, and we'd be incarcerating 'em for a very, very long time. It's also unclear whether young folks think about that, so how much of a real deterrent it would be is an open question. How are yeh goin' to pay for it?"

So then what's the cost of a person's life when they are let back out on the street after a slap on the wrist, which is the cheapest solution?

"Then there's the zero-tolerance thing. So your son takes an unloaded gun to school to threaten a school bully. Yeh want him to get 10 years for that? Or if WasE61 gets his way, yeh want him to get da hangman's noose?"

I'm sure the school bully's life expectancy will be a little longer. And what about the poor picked on kid who's only recourse is self-defense? Any kid, no matter how picked on, feels it is necessary to solve his problems with a gun, probably needs a little time out to work out some other issues in his/her life. Does this mean that if really threatened by someone other than a bully someone shouldn't be able to use a gun? No, self-defense is not a criminal act.

The point is, the target of the restrictions is the criminal, not the law abiding citizen. If one is not going to keep criminals off the street, then one must accept what those people will do and if they do it with a gun, it could mean some innocent person pays the price for society's lack of vigilance.

It's always easier to go after the law abiding citizen with legislature to make people feel all warm and fuzzy. It is far more disturbing to have to deal with criminals with guns. Do you lock them up? Kill them? What???? Taking guns away or restricting Mr. Joe Average who hunts once or twice a year is not the solution.

We have prisons today to keep certain people away from the society in which we live. They have proven they can't take care of themselves so the legal system has to take care of them on behalf of the society they are protecting. We don't have many islands like Australia where we can send them all away to, like they used to with the penal colonies. So what's the alternative? Let them roam the streets or lock them up. Not much of a choice. But locking them up seems to be the safer alternative.

Stosh

Yah, so again, jblake47, how are yeh goin' to pay for it? I grant it's emotionally attractive to label 'em all criminals and enact zero-tolerance laws with long prison terms. But our prisons are full, eh? Da reason people don't tend to get long terms for first offense minor gun crimes is that we can't afford it. Da states are broke.

So what tax are yeh goin' to increase to pay for da expansion of prisons, and addin' prosecutors and such? And what rights surrender for your strict zero-tolerance regime?

Da other problem is that previous-offender criminals are just a fraction of da problem. Lots of suicides, murder-suicides, accidents, armed altercations and such committed by folks who were regular, ordinary, law-abiding citizens up until that point. Your "jail 'em all" approach would not have stopped Sandy Hook or any of da other school shootings in the last month.

B

You're the lawyer Beavah, you ought to know that every one of (doh, Basements proposal, sorry), with the possible exception of 5 would fail Constitutional muster. Especially #3.

Easy way to evaluate. Replace "firearm ownwership" with "voting rights" in each of your proposals and tell me if a court would tolerate them? If the court spent more than 5 minutes on the diliberation, it would only be to debate just how harshly to berate the legislative body that passed the law.(This message has been edited by JMHawkins)

Sorry, the "da" in the title threw me, figured it was Beavah proposing this law...