my ideas for gun control

[pangloss]

I don't sell many guns, and when I do they almost always go through a FFL. I think that the only two that haven't are a G17 I sold to my dad and a G22 I sold to one of my best friends, whom I've known since 7th grade. Suffice to say that neither are prohibited persons. The idea of private sales to unknown buyers has always made me uncomfortable. At the same time, I think that universal background checks are a pathway to registration, and that's something I adamantly oppose. I've been trying to think of a non-intrusive way to reduce the frequency of private party sales to prohibited persons, and I've thought of two ideas.

1. Mandate that background checks be performed for buyers at gun shows. The organizer of the gun show would somehow have to facilitate the background check, likely for a small fee. The obvious flaw is that I could identify a gun I want to buy from a non-FFL in the gun show and then go make the transaction in the parking lot. Remember that the goal is not to completely prevent prohibited persons from obtaining firearms, but rather to simply reduce the frequency of that event. While I'm ideologically opposed to creating additional barriers to firearms ownership by law abiding people, the burden that implementing this idea would create strikes me as pretty minimal.

2. Private party sales can only be conducted between close family members or in cases when the buyer possess a concealed carry card. Sales may be legally conducted between individuals living in different states and every state must honor every other state's CCL. Problems with this idea are that several states now have constitutional carry, so people carrying via those laws would need a CCL for private party purchase. Another flaw is that basically you just have to trust people to obey the law, which is what we're doing now anyway so maybe that's not a problem. Lastly, there's the possibility that this could be a first step toward a national Firearms Owners ID, which is too close to a gun registry for my comfort. This one seems like a pretty big trade, and I'm not sure if it's an even trade. However, the goal is not to 100% to fix the problem--just reduce it.

I'm not sure if I'd be in favor of either of these if I had to vote on them. I'd like to hear what other people think. If you think these are terrible ideas, please tell me why. Thanks.

[Drifting Fate]

Not to be rude, but slowly put down the beer and back away.

What you propose would stop nothing. A vibrant black market already exists and will continue to exist in prohibited items of all types.

What you propose is a direct violation of the Second Amendment - what does "... shall not be infringed." mean to you?

What you propose takes away the concept of private property - if you can't sell it how you see fit without the approval of the government you don't really own it.

What you propose finds gun owners guilty without due process and for crimes they did not commit - "transfers" of ownership occur thousands of time a year without criminal use or intent.

What you propose builds up to, and will lead to, gun registration which is the first step to confiscation, ALWAYS.

What you propose implies that inanimate objects somehow have fault in the actions of human beings.

What you propose is repugnant to all freedom loving individuals and I would encourage you to thoroughly think about the implications and effects of your actions not only now but generations down the road.

[Bergeron]

All of these ideas, to a greater or lesser degree, are terrible. No amount of laws can eliminate societal death and carnage, and all of these laws can make it that much harder to exercise your rights to weapons and defense.

The ignorant, the inexperienced, and the unaware don’t know what it’s like to live with firearms or to face a deadly situation, and politicians who crave control and disarmament leverage this unknowing by making the harmful appear reasonable. There are many reasons to avoid the banning of private firearms transfer, and we need to be vocal about the times that we’ve lent or been lended guns, about the times we’ve gave and been given guns, and the millions of legal private transfers that occur every year between the law-abiding.

Banning private transfers, or UBC as the grabbers might call it, is a huge slice of the gun rights cake to give away, and I would urge caution before tossing it out. At least make it a compromise, at least get back some large and useful concessions before leaving your right to acquire weapons to the whims of your government.

[Duke]

No.

I’m not a criminal. There are already plenty of rules for me to abide by.

[wvincent]

Umm, no thanks. I like my Constitutional rights just the way they are.
When your proposal fails, what are you willing to cede next? Just curious.

Don't take this as a personal attack, but it just seems like you are trying to give away the smallest pound of flesh possible, to appease those who want to infringe upon our rights. The simple fact is, the only appeasement that will suffice would be total disarmament of the law abiding populace, possibly even of law enforcement.

So..... just no.

[Duke]

Umm, no thanks. I like my Constitutional rights just the way they are.
When your proposal fails, what are you willing to cede next? Just curious.

Don't take this as a personal attack, but it just seems like you are trying to give away the smallest pound of flesh possible, to appease those who want to infringe upon our rights. The simple fact is, the only appeasement that will suffice would be total disarmament of the law abiding populace, possibly even of law enforcement.

So..... just no.

Exactly


It’s not a compromise when I get nothing in the deal.

You don’t need to appease anyone when you’re armed, you see.

[pangloss]

Thanks of your inputs. We agree on some of the weakness, particularly on potential pathways to gun registration. However, I didn't propose to ban private transfers. Also, the goal is not to stop anything, but just reduce something. More along my thinking is would a 30% price increase in black market price for guns affect the crime rate in high crime cities? I have no idea what the answer is. Maybe the black market would respond by simply stealing more guns. To be clear, I'm "proposing" these for conversation. I'm certainly not hovering over the send button on a letter to my congressmen!

Regarding infringement, the reality of the situation is that right or wrong Heller allows it to some degree. I thought the trade for national concealed carry reciprocity in #2 would be a decent win for the 2A side, but maybe it's too costly.

How about we pursue a hypothetical: you have to come up with one gun control law or guns will be banned. What would you pick, repugnant as it might be? Feel free to suggest "trades" as part of the law -- eliminate the NFA, open the registry for full autos, whatever you think would be most desirable to have un-infringed, for lack of a better term.

[Darth_Uno]

The idea of private sales to unknown buyers has always made me uncomfortable.

Then don’t sell to unknown buyers. Problem solved.

And Illinois already requires all gun show transfers to go through an FFL. Has it saved any lives? I guess we’ll never know, but probably not.

[wvincent]

Thanks of your inputs. We agree on some of the weakness, particularly on potential pathways to gun registration. However, I didn't propose to ban private transfers. Also, the goal is not to stop anything, but just reduce something. More along my thinking is would a 30% price increase in black market price for guns affect the crime rate in high crime cities? I have no idea what the answer is. Maybe the black market would respond by simply stealing more guns. To be clear, I'm "proposing" these for conversation. I'm certainly not hovering over the send button on a letter to my congressmen!

Regarding infringement, the reality of the situation is that right or wrong Heller allows it to some degree. I thought the trade for national concealed carry reciprocity in #2 would be a decent win for the 2A side, but maybe it's too costly.

How about we pursue a hypothetical: you have to come up with one gun control law or guns will be banned. What would you pick, repugnant as it might be? Feel free to suggest "trades" as part of the law -- eliminate the NFA, open the registry for full autos, whatever you think would be most desirable to have un-infringed, for lack of a better term.

Okay, I'll play.
1. Prohibited persons (convicted felons) may not possess or attempt to purchase firearms. Oh snap, that's already on the books. Maybe we could enforce it and see if it helps before proposing new laws.

[the Schwartz]

Thanks of your inputs. We agree on some of the weakness, particularly on potential pathways to gun registration. However, I didn't propose to ban private transfers. Also, the goal is not to stop anything, but just reduce something. More along my thinking is would a 30% price increase in black market price for guns affect the crime rate in high crime cities? I have no idea what the answer is. Maybe the black market would respond by simply stealing more guns. To be clear, I'm "proposing" these for conversation. I'm certainly not hovering over the send button on a letter to my congressmen!

Regarding infringement, the reality of the situation is that right or wrong Heller allows it to some degree. I thought the trade for national concealed carry reciprocity in #2 would be a decent win for the 2A side, but maybe it's too costly.

How about we pursue a hypothetical: you have to come up with one gun control law or guns will be banned. What would you pick, repugnant as it might be? Feel free to suggest "trades" as part of the law -- eliminate the NFA, open the registry for full autos, whatever you think would be most desirable to have un-infringed, for lack of a better term.

To you, I offer this frequently used quote:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Your hypothetical is a false choice because those whom you seek to appease will never settle for one part of the goal they seek; the total disarmament of the citizenry and the dismantling of the Bill of Rights starting with the 2nd Amendment. There is no appeasing those whose only goal is your elimination.

What you propose is a fool's errand.