05-08-2023, 04:38 PM
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Minimum age of 21 to purchase a firearm
I'd actually advocate for 25, but know that that would be impossible to actually implement
- 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).
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.
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".
- 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.
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.
- The Federal Government should advocate for or incentivize local Governments to properly treat people with mental health issues, particularly if they show violent tendencies
- "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.
- 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).
- 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 whom
- 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
(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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Minimum age of 21 to purchase a firearm
I'd actually advocate for 25, but know that that would be impossible to actually implement
- 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).
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.
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".
- 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.
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.
- The Federal Government should advocate for or incentivize local Governments to properly treat people with mental health issues, particularly if they show violent tendencies
- "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.
- 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).
- 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 whom
- 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