A pro-gun rights friend messaged to ask me what I would want from gun control in the US. First, I want to be clear: I don't want to control the guns. For that, I point to this little meme:
Now that that's out of the way... Let me say that what I want from gun regulation is this: creating barriers for criminals attempting to access weapons that increase their likelihood of success in pursuing criminal activity while protecting those who like or enjoy owning and using guns for non-criminal reasons.
Everyone in my immediate family except me - and ironically my Navy officer sister - has a concealed carry permit. Navy sister gets guns, though, and according to the Navy is an expert shooter of some weapon. I don't remember which one. I just know her uniform has a little bar with an 'E' and when I asked her she told me and she told me the weapon. I thought it was cool. I forgot the weapon.
But I digress. My family - and a large number of friends - have CCW permits. They have all taken CCW classes. They've all gone to the shooting range and practiced firing weapons.
I was brought up around guns. My brother was given one for his 14th birthday. (It led to a fantastic story I tell about the first time I brought a boyfriend home, but I won't share that here because my brother will kill me.) My neighbour had a gun and he used to take my brother skeet shooting when they were younger. My grandfather had a gun. I imagine my great-grandfather had a couple. I am pretty sure that most of my extended family have one or more guns in their houses.
So I'm not intrinsically afraid of guns. They aren't unfamiliar to me. I don't think people who own or like guns are simply crazy or stupid or lacking in intelligence or social skills. The things that make them happy just happen to be different from what makes me happy. They like having weapons and firing them and being with them, and ostensibly cleaning them and making them look pretty. Whatever. I don't get it (though sometimes I do think it might be fun to shoot things).
These friends and family also aren't in the habit of killing people, selling drugs, or whatever. So if it makes them happy, that's cool. Let them do it. But with reasonable limitations that are aimed at the criminal elements in our society.
Here are my six proposals I'd like to see in gun legislation. Some of it's standard; some of it perhaps isn't. Some of it's well thought out; some of it's merely sketched out.
(1) A ban on the sale of high capacity magazines.
(2) Testing and registration for gun licenses. This wouldn't be some astronomical test. It would be similar to a driving license. The state can't arbitrarily deny you a permit, but you have to show (a) you can see clearly and pass a visual test; and (b) you know how to use a gun, how to carry it, and the rules of gun safety. If you commit criminal activities with your gun, you lose your license. Whether this loss is temporary or permanent will depend on the crime. If your criminal activity is using a weapon without a permit, it might incur a one year loss of rights; if it's premeditated murder, a politlcal assassination, mass murder or a shooting spree, you should lose the right for life.
The licensing would be done on a state-by-state basis and licenses would have the same effect as a driver's license. A license in one state would let you buy a gun and transport it to another. But there would be some basic expectations of all states in their licensing standards (like visual tests, and needing to prove you know how to load and unload a gun and how to carry it, etc.). These requirements probably wouldn't be much different than the current standards for concealed carry permits.
Also, similar to a car, you could own a gun without a license; you just can't operate a gun without a license. So people can collect antique guns but not use them unless they are given a license. To make this effective, you would need to show your gun license when purchasing ammunition. Selling ammunition to a person without a gun license would be treated similar to selling alcohol or tobacco to a minor.
Operating a gun without a license would be a crime. There would be exemptions for use in non-criminal activity on private property. So if someone wants to take their 8 year old kid out on their fam and teach them how to shoot, they can and it won't incur liability. If a 17 year old unlicensed kid goes and robs someone with that same gun used to teach the 8 year old, though, they incur the liability for both the armed robbery but also for operating a gun without a license.
(3) Gun sales would need to be registered. The obligation to register the sale would fall on the seller who would provide a copy of the background check they received. Failure to do so would be a crime and the seller would incur some level of liability for criminal activity conducted with a gun that was sold without this registration.
(4) A closing of the loophole on background checks. Private sales would need a background check and the sale would need to be registered. Like #3, failure to do so would be a crime and the seller would incur some level of liability for criminal activity conducted with a gun that was sold without registration.
The criminal liability incurred for these last two provisions might be in the form of a penalty or jail time, depending on the crime committed and the history of the people involved in purchase and sale of the weapon. If a gun is stolen, personal owners (as opposed to stores) have something like 72 hours to one week to report the gun stolen and not incur liability for its use.
These provisions are an attempt to temper a lot of the internal black-market, private sale loopholes and to encourage people not to skirt the obligations of a background check and registration of a sale. Right now, investigations show people are willing to make private sales even when they know someone wouldn't pass a background check. They essentially know they are assisting someone in future criminal conduct, but it's not actually a crime. When there are sales to criminals who couldn't pass the background check, it should just be the criminal who is responsible but those who intentionally able the criminal as well.
(5) Companies involved in the regular sale of guns would have to undertake semi-annual or quarterly inventory requirements, with reporting to the ATF. This is just to tell the ATF if any guns have been stolen, and to ensure the company is complying with its registration requirements for the guns it does sell. Systematic problems that remain uncorrected or unaddressed may result in suspension of the company's license to sell.
This will be the costliest aspect for big companies that sell weapons, but right now they have no oversight and the ATF can't force inventories or reporting. Once a company gets registered, gun trace evidence can't be used in determining the company's licensing provisions. The company doesn't have to tell anyone if a gun is stolen, even though the very nature of gun theft suggests it will be used in the future for criminal activity. We need some common sense way that is not overly burdensome to ensure companies have some oversight in who they sell to and under what conditions.
(6) A national non-mandatory buy-back of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. The government could pay for the assault weapons / magazines, or provide tax deductions for turning them in, or provide something like gifts cards, food-stamp cards or prepaid debit cards. To offset the cost of the program, the guns collected could then be melted down and sold at auction, or sold to state or federal law enforcement / military units. The program wouldn't need to run for that many years - maybe 5 - so we wouldn't be setting up a permanent governmental structure or agency. Just a short-term program, possibly run by the ATF or the FBI.
I disagree with those who say it would be unconstitutional to force people to turn in their assault weapons and high capacity magazines. I can only see it being unconstitutional if we didn't compensate them for the property loss or provide a means of appealing if they have just objections. This isn't a violation of a 2nd Amendment unless the 2nd Amendment itself protections the right to own and purchase high capacity magazines and assault weapons. The '08 Supreme Court decision doesn't suggest this is the case. But, the 5th Amendment taking clause protects the right to property, and guns are a type of property. So any mandatory return of assault weapons, etc., would simply need due process and adequate compensation.
But that's actually an academic point here, because I don't think we need a mandatory buy-back as long as we have the other steps in place. I also think a mandatory buy-back would create too many problems and would cause too much of an uproar in the gun-owning community. So it's unnecessary and divisive. Why would I push for that? We can accomplish the real goals I see of gun control - reducing criminal access while protecting the rights of those who want to shoot things for a non-criminal purpose - with the other steps and a voluntary buy-back.
So that's what I would want to see. Six steps. Nothing massive. Nothing to take guns away from those who want to responsibly use them to non-criminally shoot things on private property. It's aimed solely at the criminals. I don't think there's anything on here that is particularly radical or threatens the average gun owner.
Will this stop all gun violence? No.
Would it have even stopped the Sandy Hook shooting? Probably not. But the guy (I'm refusing to name him because we should be remembering the victims and not the perpetrator) might not have been able to kill all 27 people besides himself. Nancy Lanza? Yes, she was sleeping. Some of the 26 students and teachers? Yes. Even with a six-shooter, he could have shot 5-6 people quickly, depending on whether he reloaded after shooting the window to get into the school. Of course, he'd have to have been a good shot to be effective in killing all of them. With a musket, he could have killed one. But all 26? That probably wouldn't have happened with the above proposals.
And if it would have saved the lives of Victoria Soto, Daniel Barden, or James Mattioli that would have been worth it, wouldn't it?
Now that that's out of the way... Let me say that what I want from gun regulation is this: creating barriers for criminals attempting to access weapons that increase their likelihood of success in pursuing criminal activity while protecting those who like or enjoy owning and using guns for non-criminal reasons.
Everyone in my immediate family except me - and ironically my Navy officer sister - has a concealed carry permit. Navy sister gets guns, though, and according to the Navy is an expert shooter of some weapon. I don't remember which one. I just know her uniform has a little bar with an 'E' and when I asked her she told me and she told me the weapon. I thought it was cool. I forgot the weapon.
But I digress. My family - and a large number of friends - have CCW permits. They have all taken CCW classes. They've all gone to the shooting range and practiced firing weapons.
I was brought up around guns. My brother was given one for his 14th birthday. (It led to a fantastic story I tell about the first time I brought a boyfriend home, but I won't share that here because my brother will kill me.) My neighbour had a gun and he used to take my brother skeet shooting when they were younger. My grandfather had a gun. I imagine my great-grandfather had a couple. I am pretty sure that most of my extended family have one or more guns in their houses.
So I'm not intrinsically afraid of guns. They aren't unfamiliar to me. I don't think people who own or like guns are simply crazy or stupid or lacking in intelligence or social skills. The things that make them happy just happen to be different from what makes me happy. They like having weapons and firing them and being with them, and ostensibly cleaning them and making them look pretty. Whatever. I don't get it (though sometimes I do think it might be fun to shoot things).
These friends and family also aren't in the habit of killing people, selling drugs, or whatever. So if it makes them happy, that's cool. Let them do it. But with reasonable limitations that are aimed at the criminal elements in our society.
Here are my six proposals I'd like to see in gun legislation. Some of it's standard; some of it perhaps isn't. Some of it's well thought out; some of it's merely sketched out.
(1) A ban on the sale of high capacity magazines.
(2) Testing and registration for gun licenses. This wouldn't be some astronomical test. It would be similar to a driving license. The state can't arbitrarily deny you a permit, but you have to show (a) you can see clearly and pass a visual test; and (b) you know how to use a gun, how to carry it, and the rules of gun safety. If you commit criminal activities with your gun, you lose your license. Whether this loss is temporary or permanent will depend on the crime. If your criminal activity is using a weapon without a permit, it might incur a one year loss of rights; if it's premeditated murder, a politlcal assassination, mass murder or a shooting spree, you should lose the right for life.
The licensing would be done on a state-by-state basis and licenses would have the same effect as a driver's license. A license in one state would let you buy a gun and transport it to another. But there would be some basic expectations of all states in their licensing standards (like visual tests, and needing to prove you know how to load and unload a gun and how to carry it, etc.). These requirements probably wouldn't be much different than the current standards for concealed carry permits.
Also, similar to a car, you could own a gun without a license; you just can't operate a gun without a license. So people can collect antique guns but not use them unless they are given a license. To make this effective, you would need to show your gun license when purchasing ammunition. Selling ammunition to a person without a gun license would be treated similar to selling alcohol or tobacco to a minor.
Operating a gun without a license would be a crime. There would be exemptions for use in non-criminal activity on private property. So if someone wants to take their 8 year old kid out on their fam and teach them how to shoot, they can and it won't incur liability. If a 17 year old unlicensed kid goes and robs someone with that same gun used to teach the 8 year old, though, they incur the liability for both the armed robbery but also for operating a gun without a license.
(3) Gun sales would need to be registered. The obligation to register the sale would fall on the seller who would provide a copy of the background check they received. Failure to do so would be a crime and the seller would incur some level of liability for criminal activity conducted with a gun that was sold without this registration.
(4) A closing of the loophole on background checks. Private sales would need a background check and the sale would need to be registered. Like #3, failure to do so would be a crime and the seller would incur some level of liability for criminal activity conducted with a gun that was sold without registration.
The criminal liability incurred for these last two provisions might be in the form of a penalty or jail time, depending on the crime committed and the history of the people involved in purchase and sale of the weapon. If a gun is stolen, personal owners (as opposed to stores) have something like 72 hours to one week to report the gun stolen and not incur liability for its use.
These provisions are an attempt to temper a lot of the internal black-market, private sale loopholes and to encourage people not to skirt the obligations of a background check and registration of a sale. Right now, investigations show people are willing to make private sales even when they know someone wouldn't pass a background check. They essentially know they are assisting someone in future criminal conduct, but it's not actually a crime. When there are sales to criminals who couldn't pass the background check, it should just be the criminal who is responsible but those who intentionally able the criminal as well.
(5) Companies involved in the regular sale of guns would have to undertake semi-annual or quarterly inventory requirements, with reporting to the ATF. This is just to tell the ATF if any guns have been stolen, and to ensure the company is complying with its registration requirements for the guns it does sell. Systematic problems that remain uncorrected or unaddressed may result in suspension of the company's license to sell.
This will be the costliest aspect for big companies that sell weapons, but right now they have no oversight and the ATF can't force inventories or reporting. Once a company gets registered, gun trace evidence can't be used in determining the company's licensing provisions. The company doesn't have to tell anyone if a gun is stolen, even though the very nature of gun theft suggests it will be used in the future for criminal activity. We need some common sense way that is not overly burdensome to ensure companies have some oversight in who they sell to and under what conditions.
(6) A national non-mandatory buy-back of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. The government could pay for the assault weapons / magazines, or provide tax deductions for turning them in, or provide something like gifts cards, food-stamp cards or prepaid debit cards. To offset the cost of the program, the guns collected could then be melted down and sold at auction, or sold to state or federal law enforcement / military units. The program wouldn't need to run for that many years - maybe 5 - so we wouldn't be setting up a permanent governmental structure or agency. Just a short-term program, possibly run by the ATF or the FBI.
I disagree with those who say it would be unconstitutional to force people to turn in their assault weapons and high capacity magazines. I can only see it being unconstitutional if we didn't compensate them for the property loss or provide a means of appealing if they have just objections. This isn't a violation of a 2nd Amendment unless the 2nd Amendment itself protections the right to own and purchase high capacity magazines and assault weapons. The '08 Supreme Court decision doesn't suggest this is the case. But, the 5th Amendment taking clause protects the right to property, and guns are a type of property. So any mandatory return of assault weapons, etc., would simply need due process and adequate compensation.
But that's actually an academic point here, because I don't think we need a mandatory buy-back as long as we have the other steps in place. I also think a mandatory buy-back would create too many problems and would cause too much of an uproar in the gun-owning community. So it's unnecessary and divisive. Why would I push for that? We can accomplish the real goals I see of gun control - reducing criminal access while protecting the rights of those who want to shoot things for a non-criminal purpose - with the other steps and a voluntary buy-back.
So that's what I would want to see. Six steps. Nothing massive. Nothing to take guns away from those who want to responsibly use them to non-criminally shoot things on private property. It's aimed solely at the criminals. I don't think there's anything on here that is particularly radical or threatens the average gun owner.
Will this stop all gun violence? No.
Would it have even stopped the Sandy Hook shooting? Probably not. But the guy (I'm refusing to name him because we should be remembering the victims and not the perpetrator) might not have been able to kill all 27 people besides himself. Nancy Lanza? Yes, she was sleeping. Some of the 26 students and teachers? Yes. Even with a six-shooter, he could have shot 5-6 people quickly, depending on whether he reloaded after shooting the window to get into the school. Of course, he'd have to have been a good shot to be effective in killing all of them. With a musket, he could have killed one. But all 26? That probably wouldn't have happened with the above proposals.
And if it would have saved the lives of Victoria Soto, Daniel Barden, or James Mattioli that would have been worth it, wouldn't it?
 |
| Victoria Soto |
 |
| James Mattioli, 6 years old |
 |
| Daniel Barden, 7 |
No comments:
Post a Comment