Would you support this gun reform bill?

[LordBrownTrout]

NO

 

[Meister]

I have an idea of a new gun reform bill which I feel would be a fair compromise between both sides of the issue.

The basically layout of the bill is as follows....

1; A complete ban on direct private person-to-person sales & the establishment of Firearms Brokerages.
Under this law, it would be illegal for a gun owner to sale their gun to another person. Instead, all private sales would be required to go through firearms brokerages. These would be private businesses which handle all private sales. They would handle background checks, would hold firearms during required waiting periods, etc. Brokerages would also keep records of all sales, and customers. They would have on record the name, address, and other information of any person who purchased a firearm. This information would only be made available to law enforcement or the government with a warrant signed by a judge.

2; A complete ban on all full auto weapons, and all attachments and modifications which allow a semi-auto weapon fire at a full auto or near full-auto rate. Possession of a functional full-auto weapon, except by military or law enforcement, or licensed private security firms would be a federal felony.

3; A ban on public carry of all firearms which are not properly holstered. In other words, no more carrying rifles and shotguns around. And no carrying sidearms unless they are in a proper holster. Again this wouldn't apply to on-duty law enforcement, military, or licensed private security firms who are actively performing their duties.

4; Active prosecution of any state or local clerks or officials who fail to properly log mental health or criminal histories into the federal background check database. Cases of neglect, would result in misdemeanor charges. Cases where a person is found to have intentionally refused to properly report this information would result in felony charges.

5; Automatic accomplice charges for all cases where a gun is knowingly sold to a criminal. What this means is that if a personally knowingly and intentionally sales a gun to a criminal, they will be automatically charged as accomplices to any crimes committed using that gun. If the criminal uses the gun to murder someone, the seller will be charged with murder.

6; No second amendment rights to any person who is a member of any organization which is designated as a terrorist group, a criminal organization, or is currently being investigated for a violent and/or gang related crime.

And the criminals are on board with this?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I have an idea of a new gun reform bill which I feel would be a fair compromise between both sides of the issue.

The basically layout of the bill is as follows....

1; A complete ban on direct private person-to-person sales & the establishment of Firearms Brokerages.
Under this law, it would be illegal for a gun owner to sale their gun to another person. Instead, all private sales would be required to go through firearms brokerages. These would be private businesses which handle all private sales. They would handle background checks, would hold firearms during required waiting periods, etc. Brokerages would also keep records of all sales, and customers. They would have on record the name, address, and other information of any person who purchased a firearm. This information would only be made available to law enforcement or the government with a warrant signed by a judge.

2; A complete ban on all full auto weapons, and all attachments and modifications which allow a semi-auto weapon fire at a full auto or near full-auto rate. Possession of a functional full-auto weapon, except by military or law enforcement, or licensed private security firms would be a federal felony.

3; A ban on public carry of all firearms which are not properly holstered. In other words, no more carrying rifles and shotguns around. And no carrying sidearms unless they are in a proper holster. Again this wouldn't apply to on-duty law enforcement, military, or licensed private security firms who are actively performing their duties.

4; Active prosecution of any state or local clerks or officials who fail to properly log mental health or criminal histories into the federal background check database. Cases of neglect, would result in misdemeanor charges. Cases where a person is found to have intentionally refused to properly report this information would result in felony charges.

5; Automatic accomplice charges for all cases where a gun is knowingly sold to a criminal. What this means is that if a personally knowingly and intentionally sales a gun to a criminal, they will be automatically charged as accomplices to any crimes committed using that gun. If the criminal uses the gun to murder someone, the seller will be charged with murder.

6; No second amendment rights to any person who is a member of any organization which is designated as a terrorist group, a criminal organization, or is currently being investigated for a violent and/or gang related crime.

I'm on the fence about points 4 and 5. I could be convinced either way.

On all the other points, I'm a hard “Absolutely Not!”.

Most are completely irreconcilable with the Second Amendment. Those that aren't blatantly unconstitutional are much too open to abuse.

A few notes on specific points:

3; A ban on public carry of all firearms which are not properly holstered. In other words, no more carrying rifles and shotguns around. And no carrying sidearms unless they are in a proper holster. Again this wouldn't apply to on-duty law enforcement, military, or licensed private security firms who are actively performing their duties.

If this point is supposed to be about carrying guns in a “safe” manner, vs. an “unsafe” manner, then why do you want it to be OK for police, military, or private security to carry in what you consider to be an “unsafe” manner? If anything, shouldn't they be held to a higher standard, than the general public, rather than a lower standard?

6; No second amendment rights to any person who is a member of any organization which is designated as a terrorist group, a criminal organization, or is currently being investigated for a violent and/or gang related crime.

And how is the determination to be made, as to what constitutes “any organization which is designated as a terrorist group, a criminal organization”? We've just seen the corrupt malfeasant asshole Merrick Garland trying to designate parents who object to their children being taught racism or depraved sexual perversions in schools, as “domestic terrorists”. Should any parent who is concerned what bullshit their children's teachers are brainwashing their children's with, be denied their Second Amendment rights? e especially saw, under the Obama administration, abuses of the IRS and other agencies to go after political dissidents; and here, you're calling to hand over a whole new weapon for a corrupt Administration to similarly use against its opponents.

The Fifth Amendment forbids a citizen from being denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Due process means being tried and convicted of a crime, and sentences to whatever deprivation is established as a suitable punishment for the crime of which one has been convicted. Certainly, the requirement for due process as a condition for any deprivation of liberty would apply to any rights explicitly affirmed in the Constitution, including the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Where is the "fair compromise" here"? The Gun Control Freaks don't give up anything at all and just get a lot more control.

And even if this was enacted, the Brady Bunch and other extremists would just push for more, like they did when Clinton signed the Draconian Assault Weapon Ban of 1993-94. They didn't even wait to see the effects of the bill before asking for more.

Do you remember Sarah Brady promising to show us “the rest of the camel”?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Read #11

See post 315.

 

[j-mac]

What an ignorant response.

Well, do you?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have an idea of a new gun reform bill which I feel would be a fair compromise between both sides of the issue.

No, you have an idea for a ridiculous troll thread.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

/----/ So this would be your first steps to total ban and confiscation.

As a reminder:

Second Amendment​

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Wrong.

As a reminder, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law – including the Second Amendment.

 

[Rogue AI]

Wrong.

As a reminder, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law – including the Second Amendment.

Wrong. The historical record of how the Founders governed gives greater context than any case law.

 

[Leviticus]

Which one of these do you believe would have prevented any of the "mass shootings" of the last... let's say... decade? Last two decades? Three?

A good number of mass shootings were done using guns the shooter bought legally, despite histories of mental illness and/or having felonies on their criminal record, both of which would have caused them to fail a background check. They were able to get the guns legally because their histories were not reported to the federal government and were not included in the background check system. This is either negligence on the part of the clerks who are supposed to do the reporting, or a willful and intentional choice to not file the information to be included in the background check system. Several mass shootings could have been prevented if the information had been properly reported, causing the shooters to be unable to pass the background checks.

 

[Leviticus]

You are very far left

Not a word about punishing criminals who use firearms to commit crimes with

There are already laws to punish criminals. We need laws to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, since THEY are the ones who commit the vast majority of mass shooings,

 

[Leviticus]

But then Biden came along and made it rain with hundreds of billions, if not trillions..So, what’s the excuse today?

Congress decides the budget, not the President

 

[Leviticus]

We can't disarm criminals, but we can reduce the events where they are used by locking up the drug addicts. This will reverse the 'domino' effect that leads to shootings.

You think most shootings are committed by drug addicts?

That would prevent some shootings, but not many in the long run.

 

[Leviticus]

I'll include another one. A complete ban on straw purchases of firearms nationwide.

As well as making it a felony for a person to make a straw purchase for someone who would not be able to legally make the purchase themselves, and if a firearm included in such a purchase is used in a crime, the purchaser would be charged as an accomplice.

This would only apply to firearms bought for people who do not have the legal right to own firearms, such as felons, or people who have histories of mental illness or other such things which would cause them to fail a background check. If wouldn't apply to guns bought as gifts, unless the person recieving it doesn't have the legal right to own it.

 

[Mac-7]

There are already laws to punish criminals.

Laws that are not being enforced

It should be an automatic 3 years in jail for anyone caught illegally carrying a firearm in public

 

[Leviticus]

Laws that are not being enforced

It should be an automatic 3 years in jail for anyone caught illegally carrying a firearm in public

Most states already have harsh punishments for anyone illegally carrying a firearm.

The issue is that depending on who is doing the carrying, gun nuts either like or hate those punishments. If they see a black gangbanger getting a few years for it, they are all for it. but if a fellow gun nut gets arrested, they call it a violation of the second amendment.

 

[Batcat]

The assault ban in 1993 did a lot of good, Bush Jr let it sunset in 2003.

Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org

Both sides in the gun debate are misusing academic reports on the impact of the 1994 assault weapons ban, cherry-picking portions out of context to suit their arguments. Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, told a Senate committee that the “ban had no impact...

www.factcheck.org

Both sides in the gun debate are misusing academic reports on the impact of the 1994 assault weapons ban, cherry-picking portions out of context to suit their arguments.

• Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, told a Senate committee that the “ban had no impact on lowering crime.” But the studies cited by LaPierre concluded that effects of the ban were “still unfolding” when it expired in 2004 and that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence.”
• Conversely, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has introduced a bill to institute a new ban on assault weapons, claimed the 1994 ban “was effective at reducing crime.” That’s not correct either. The study concluded that “we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”

 

[toobfreak]

Would you support this gun reform bill?​

NO. The problem with gun reform is that guns don't need reformed! Guns have not changed a bit since 40 years ago when no one had ever heard of a "school-shooter."

What we need is People Reform, because PEOPLE are what has changed. PEOPLE are the ones picking up guns for senseless violence.

And People Reform begins with Government Reform, and that begins with getting all of the subversives and progressives out of office.

 

[Mac-7]

Most states already have harsh punishments for anyone illegally carrying a firearm.

You’re dreaming

Unless you actually shoot someone in a deep blue city you will be back on the street the same day

 

[Leviticus]

Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org

Both sides in the gun debate are misusing academic reports on the impact of the 1994 assault weapons ban, cherry-picking portions out of context to suit their arguments. Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, told a Senate committee that the “ban had no impact...

www.factcheck.org

Both sides in the gun debate are misusing academic reports on the impact of the 1994 assault weapons ban, cherry-picking portions out of context to suit their arguments.

• Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, told a Senate committee that the “ban had no impact on lowering crime.” But the studies cited by LaPierre concluded that effects of the ban were “still unfolding” when it expired in 2004 and that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence.”
• Conversely, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has introduced a bill to institute a new ban on assault weapons, claimed the 1994 ban “was effective at reducing crime.” That’s not correct either. The study concluded that “we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”

The NRA is a gun manufacturing lobby, with it's leaders all owning millions of dollars in tock in those companies. They have a long history of opposing any and all refrms or laws which would negatively effect the profits of gun makers., including opposing background checks for mental illness, because crazy people tend to like to own guns. I would would take any claims made by anyone associated with the NRA with a grain of salt.