SDGuy wrote:
Here are what I believe should be implemented, in no particular order:
(Note that although I believe in all of these, I also recognize that many of them are likely State, and not Federal level issues):

- Redefine what a "firearm" is to whatever component includes the chamber of the weapon.
I believe this needs to be done to address the ease with which ordinary folks can now 3D print a firearm receiver (essentially a plastic handle). For now, manufacturing the chamber of a firearm (typically it is included with the barrel (on pistols), but not always; and on rifles it is very often a separate component) is beyond the means of ordinary folks. I think that will change if/when 3D printing in metal becomes a reality.
A firearm is a gun, a tool that fires a bullet at a deadly speed. Materials should not make a difference. A gun is a gun
- All firearms transfers must go through a FFL Dealer, and include a NICS check
Hopefully the reasoning for this is self-explanatory: People who cannot pass a NICS check by definition are not legally allowed to possess a firearm. Yes, already at Florida gun shows they put up big signs banning private sales, but also set up a table to offer to have a dealer handle it with a background exec for a $5 fee. Possible exception for family members, giving a gun to your wife, accepting guns from a deceased father etc.

- License, training, and insurance required for Concealed Carry
In my mind, this is much like having a Driver's License to operate a vehicle on public roads.
almost 1/2 of states require aa license to carry a firearm. Make it universal but also make it easier to get your license. Many states make it several steps and takes a month. Insurance could be tough, adding significant cost to gun ownership
- Minimum age of 21 to purchase a firearm
I'd actually advocate for 25, but know that that would be impossible to actually implement
We have 21 for a hand gun in most states. I can see an issue in states where hunting is common and kids hunt at 15 or 17, perhaps keep rifles at 18?
And after recently learning to handle firearms, less than 2 years ago, it is a lot easier to teach someone to safely handle a gun than it is to drive.
- Training required for firearms purchases
I have seen too many folks in the possession of firearms who have no business holding one (with their current level of knowledge of how to handle them).

- Magazine capacity limit (probably 15 if I had to pick a number)
I don't think this is likely - because I think Congress screwed the pooch with the original limit of "10"; at the time, "15" was the most commonplace capacity for pistols (it was a big deal when the Glock 17 came out, with a 17-round capacity).
Not sure capacity really matters, it takes 3 second to swap for a full magazine.

As an analogy, I think everyone knows that the most common capacity for revolvers is "6" (and lesser-known is "5" for compact revolvers), and revolvers that hold more than that exist, but are in much smaller numbers.true. 8 round revolvers are typically small caliber
What happened in 1994 would be like Congress passing a law that revolvers are limited to "4" rounds. Now, the vast majority of revolver owners (who probably would have been fine, although possibly reluctantly, with a limit of "6") are affected - and instead of supporting the limit, will wonder "wtf?", and instead of being an ally become an opponent.

- Red Flag Laws to identify folks who are most likely to do violent things and in a legal hearing decide if they should be allowed to own firearms.
I admit that this has to be the trickiest, but needs to be done in some form.
It is my perception that many, if not most of the shooters seen in the news were giving off all sorts of signals beforehand that they were a danger. My guess is that folks who know them would, without hesitation, say something along the lines of "oh, yeah - not surprised he did it", or "yeah - he's the neighborhood weirdo that we all avoid; there's something off about him". Just need to have a process through the courts or a judge so false reports are not made, peoples rights are not taken away falsely

- Safe storage laws
Definitely mandatory for residences that have minors living or visiting there.
I know there would be pushback on requiring this for adults-only households, but I think it could be done if the argument for it is framed properly.
Some of the times kids find guns are just crazy and seems mostly to happen in inner cities with illegally owned handguns. Every gun I have bought came with a lock and a lockable case. Keeping a loaded gun under a couch cushion with 5 kids running around is not acceptable
Tangentially related:
- The Federal Government should advocate for or incentivize local Governments to NOT allow violent crimes to be prosecuted as misdemeanors.
My thought is that anyone who is found guilty of a violent crime should not be able to pass a NICS check. Exactly. commit a crime with a gun, face harsh penalties

- The Federal Government should advocate for or incentivize local Governments to properly treat people with mental health issues, particularly if they show violent tendencies Yes, mental health care can deal with not just mass shootings, but depression, suicide, addiction, all sorts of issues

- "Stand your ground" laws should specifically state you can defend yourself when attacked. I believe that was the original intent behind them, but it appears that they are now being used to allow people to initiate confrontations because of perceived threats that exist only in their mind.

- Liability Laws
I believe that if someone knowingly has their firearm easily accessible by folks who should not have access to them should be held liable in some way.
But - if they made a good-faith effort to prevent that (i.e. locked in a safe, which a thief broke into), then they should NOT be held liable.

For manufacturers, if they are allowing their weapons to get out to the public without going through a FFL, they are already breaking the law. Holding them liable for what the users of the weapons do seems tricky; maybe if their marketing implies doing something illegal? This would have to be a very-much case-by-case basis. Manufacturers do not sell firearms, like most auto makers they can only sell to dealers who sell to the public. Gun manufacturers advocate for gun safety harder than anyone

- Why I don't believe in an "Assault Weapons" ban:
Namely, because every "Assault Weapons" ban I've seen has exemptions for functionally identical firearms (e.g. Ruger Mini-14, M1 Carbine) The increased danger coming from semi-automatic firearms is due to the magazines, and that can be addressed by limiting their capacity (which is a separate topic).
yes, the AR-15 battlecry is a political ploy. The AR platform is nothing more than a popular style of rifle, almost all are medium caliber, way down on the list of damage delivered from a rifle. Most hunting rifles are more powerful, more dangerous. The term "assault rifle" gets used to describe almost any black metal rifle, Carbine or long barreled pistol
- Why I don't believe in having a database/registration of firearms:
Those have been used in the past by those in authority to have a ready-made list of what to confiscate, and from whomGood luck with that one. The closest we have is manufacturers keep a list of what guns are sold to what dealers and then dealers keep a list of who they sold a specific gun to. Access to either requires a search warrant

- Why I don't believe in "microstamping":
Same reason as above: to be useful, it necessarily would have to be tied to a database of firearms, and who owns them

zachdog wrote:
SDGuy, I like your list.

I advocate for either an assault-weapons ban, or a ban on ammunition that destroys flesh in the manner exhibited by the AR-15. The ammunition might be better to regulate, because without ammo, the war machines become worthless. And yes, I know some people pour their own ammo – but those who wish to commit an emotional spur-of-the-moment crime probably don't.
That would ban event hunting rifle because they almost all use bigger, more powerful ammo than the AR-15

I also advocate for manufacturer liability. Is the weapon being designed for self defense or hunting? Or mass murders? I'd let a jury decide. And decide again. And decide again. Perhaps the manufacturers would stop selling war weapons if they were constantly sued. No guns available to the general public are designed for murdering people, yet all guns made for the general public can easily kill people. The AR-15 is perfectly designed for hunting hogs, excellent for sport shooting, target shooting and also ideal for women because of it's small caliber and light recoil

I also advocate that states need to take the lead on this since the Feds are overrun by right-wing politicians who won't consider any common-sense gun reform. We have that now, democratic states banning guns and republican states making guns easier to carry. Chicago is a mess

When will we decide that gun reform is more important than just offering thoughts and prayers? Want a gun? Fine. Prove you're a safe and mature citizen. Want to fire an AR-15? Join the military, because that's where that gun exclusively belongs -- on the battlefield.