Survey: What "Reasonable Gun Law Reform" would/could you accept?

[Bill of Rights]

Either BAN ALL GUNS - EVERY ONE OF THEM - AND SEIZE THEM IMMEDIATELY, or at a MINIMUM, ban all the "sporting" ones - take all the fancy walnut-and-steel leverguns, pretty double shotguns, custom bolt-actions, and muzzleloaders.

Maybe the 79 million "gun owners" who sit on their butts and sell the others out because they happen to own arms more appropriate for "militia" use will get a clue that they need to learn what the Second Amendment means, and fight for it.

If they aren't going to ban everything, then I choose choice #21 - NONE OF THE ABOVE.

Be careful what you wish for. "All or none" can as easily result in "none" as "all". I might agree with the ability to do a background NICS check, however I don't trust the database to be unsullied. (They DO have the UPIN thing set up for a reason, after all)

I have to go with #21 and/or #23.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[bloodandgutsmurphy]

19

 

[justjoe]

If someone can name ONE thing the government has done right in the last 50 years, I "might" go along with number 1. As they have not it's number 21 and remove the restrictions they have in place now.

 

[7urtle]

I asked this on non gun specific forums before asking it on here to gauge the response of gun owners that didn't sign up for an obviously pro-gun stance first. So now that I've gotten some replies from them, I'll ask here. (NOTE: These are not my suggestions. I'm just compiling them as I see them pop up and gain traction on news sites, social media, etc. This list will also be an expanded list since the responders will most certainly be more well versed in firearms lingo)

1. Background checks include mental health problems
2. Total ban on magazines over 10 rounds.
6. Different capacity bans for rifles/ handguns/ shotguns?
7. Ban on aftermarket mags allowing more than factory intended capacity?
10. Ban on pistol grips?
14. National reciprocity to own and carry, own and not carry, or no license to own but to carry w/ federally recognized standardized test?
16. Ability to perform background check during private sale?
18. Mandatory training on par with LEO to own?
19. ALL civilians, including LEO, have equal access to firearms provided equal background checks, training, and proficiency checks are met; including newly manufactured selective fire weapons and all NFA items.

Thoughts?

18-if carry
10-because theyre scary(mother said ban assault rifles because gang bangers use them likely because most people think like my mom and dont research)
2,6,7-i can udestand it, wouldnt like it,agree with it
wouldnt mental checks give non doctors access to medical records? dont like that

 

[finnegan]

I think HIPPA laws would not allow for the FFL to know why the person was denied, just that he was. As far as I know, they don't tell the seller what a person did to be denied or delayed, just that they are, correct? It'd have to be the same way.

A few more that I've seen in the last couple of days; these from those who want to punish gun owners any way they can:

24. Mandatory lockable safe ownership with legislation making the gun owner an accessory to any crimes committed with the gun stolen from their property.

25. Ban on internet sale of ammunition and magazines/ or must be shipped to an FFL.

26. Mandatory death or life sentence w/o parole for violent crime involving a gun resulting in death.

27. "Mental Health Tax" on gun sales to fund mental healthcare programs.

28. "Violence Tax" on gun sales to pay for medical cost of healthcare for gun violence victims.

 

[M67]

I think HIPPA laws would not allow for the FFL to know why the person was denied, just that he was. As far as I know, they don't tell the seller what a person did to be denied or delayed, just that they are, correct?

Correct, NICS doesn't tell the FFL why the person got denied or delays. They just say "trasnaction is delayed while NICS continues its research. The Bradey Law does not prohibit the transfer of the firearm on XXXXX if no resolution is resolved (I might have butchered that last part). Or they say denied and get the person's address.

 

[merotek]

I would not "accept" any of these. I think the only real gun control that will work is not having gun free zones. Even the crazies aren't crazy enough to start shooting in a place where there may be someone who will shoot back!

 

[finnegan]

Have been asking around. Including a mental health check is still the most popular. Most favor it in the "been involuntarily committed" form; as well as "Been ruled innocent by reason of insanity."

 

[dansgotguns]

21

 

[Mosinguy]

Can't spend time reading pages of debate. The only "reasonable gun law reform" I'd support is the total repeal of any anti-gun law dating all the way back to the National Firearms Act.

 

[LPMan59]

since the Indiana Constitution says

Article I Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

AND

Article XII Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state.

Does this mean I can haz M16 since I'm over 17?

 

[Beau]

21

 

[pwoller]

21 for me. This talk is scary!

 

[downrise14]

21, but I will say that it does bother me that anyone can buy anything at a gunshow without background checks. You see it all the time. And you know thats how many felons/criminals get their weapons.

 

[HICKMAN]

21, but I will say that it does bother me that anyone can buy anything at a gunshow without background checks. You see it all the time. And you know thats how many felons/criminals get their weapons.

you mean like the private sale I participated in today in the parking lot of the Bloomington Harley Davidson?

 

[IndyDave1776]

There are only two reasonable reforms. The Second Amendment is very plain. It is a right. Rights do not come with strings attached, and if they do, they are not rights, but rather revocable privileges. First, the only acceptable solution is proper adherence to the Second Amendment, particularly the 'shall not be infringed' part and there should be no conditions or restrictions on anyone's rights except during times of incarceration in a correctional or mental health institution. As soon as their feet hit the sidewalk, their rights are back with them. Second, anyone advocating, lobbying for, introducing to congress, voting in congress for, or signing as president any law restricting the Second Amendment should face MANDATORY treason charges for having done so.

 

[gunowner930]

21, but I will say that it does bother me that anyone can buy anything at a gunshow without background checks. You see it all the time. And you know thats how many felons/criminals get their weapons.

Oh really!? Where did you hear that? Anti-gun talking points? I'm going to let you in on a little secret, THERE IS NO GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE. THERE IS NO GUNSHOW LOOPSHOLE, THERE IS NO GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE. Try buying a firearm from a vendor at a gun show without a background check. The gunshow loophole is more accurately described as a private sale. If I were to sell one of my firearms to you, it is legal because I am selling my property to you for a price, and I cannot legally sell you my firearms if I know that you are a felon or an otherwise improper person.

There is a black market for firearms, but since you made a claim I want you to provide proof with specific examples that you have witnessed at a gunshow of felons/criminals purchasing "anything." Please enlighten me, I would like to know which gun shows that criminals are able to buy RPGs and automatic weapons without background checks.

 

[MTC]

There are only two reasonable reforms. The Second Amendment is very plain. It is a right. Rights do not come with strings attached, and if they do, they are not rights, but rather revocable privileges. First, the only acceptable solution is proper adherence to the Second Amendment, particularly the 'shall not be infringed' part and there should be no conditions or restrictions on anyone's rights except during times of incarceration in a correctional or mental health institution. As soon as their feet hit the sidewalk, their rights are back with them. Second, anyone advocating, lobbying for, introducing to congress, voting in congress for, or signing as president any law restricting the Second Amendment should face MANDATORY treason charges for having done so.

Or at the very least, perjury for having violated the oath.

 

[TopDog]

I have not read the entire thread. But I bet the majority say none or 21. That would be an ideal world. BACK to reality, if we are talking throw a dog a bone to get them to stop screaming insane demands then:

1. Probably the most acceptable.

5. Least hurtful because its the highest capacity listed.

7. Kind of scary, could be misinterpreted. Example: Anti's could pull some fake crap out of their butts saying that all pistols were originally designed to only hold 10 rounds or less. If it were to state as of current production then, OK.

18. I think this one, the mandatory training might be very acceptable to the anti's. Giving them a warm and fuzzy feeling. Footnotes could be added so that any formal training, boyscout, military etc. would meet the requirements. Yes I know many of you are grinding your teeth, take a deep breath.

14. Scares the living hell out of me. I dont want a National anything. The less the Federal betrayers of the Constitution are directly involved the better. National anything is just a really bad idea.

 

[ZX-14R]

#21 and #23

What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" do liberals not get??!??!?!
(Oh wait, they get it, they don't care)