A "common sense" proposal that will piss off both sides

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
8,894
Location
Twin Cities
I offer the following as appropriate in my mind for a hunting forum given the important role firearms have in hunting, the overlap between hunters and broader "shooting enthusiasts", and my faith in the broad judgment and experience of the HT community. Please keep this civil and please avoid generic anti-Dem/anti-GOP tropes.

I am a 2A proponent consistent with the boundaries of Heller. That being, a person has a 2A right to bear arms for, among other reasons, personal protection. At the same time, like every one of the rights guaranteed under our Constitution, certain carefully crafted regulation is possible.

As such, I grow weary of one side repackaging their wish list as "common sense", and equally grow weary of the other side pointing out all the social ills that are the "real root of violence" but then not funding any programs to address those ills.

In my view, "common-sense" legislation implicitly requires some degree of compromise - a move by both sides to the middle. So, while I know there are folks that will pan each and every idea I suggest below, I do believe if enacted together they could make a meaningful difference in gun violence and suicide while minimizing the overall net effects on the vast majority of gun owners.

----
These are in no particular order
  • Universal Background Checks for all transfers, sales or conveyances - the only exceptions are (i) for parent to child in presence of parent, (ii) parent to child for hunting where both are participants, (iii) hunting/shooting partner/instructor to partner/student at range or when hunting and (iv) to/from FFL holder
  • If after three days the check is not cleared, it can be extended an additional 30 days, but if the individual is eventually cleared, the govt will give them a 25% rebate on the purchase price for the 30 day hassle/delay
  • The Fed govt will continue to invest in improved background check databases and functionality
  • A fully funded and staffed system for timely restoration of firearms rights for anyone who has not committed a crime where they shot another person and is otherwise deemed safe/rehabilitated

  • Self-made firearms may not be made by any person who is inelligible to purchase under the Universal Background Check criterea
  • Self-made firearms may not be sold/transferred/conveyed to any other person without proper serialization

  • Fed funds provided to states/local govt for law enforcement, prisons, and emergency medical services will be subject to active enforcement, prosecution and sentencing of existing firearms laws.

  • Federal red flag system using due process standards similar to civil commitment with timely and reliable return of firearms after the situation no longer supports continued "committment" status
  • Strong criminal penalties for misuse of red flag system by those initiating the action

  • NFA rules around SBR/shotgun length/supressors/etc are gone - a firearm is a firearm, size, shape, and color have no impact on regulation other than a continued minimum metal requirement

  • Fully automatic firearms (FAF) are illegal for any person other than military in course of duties
  • Current lawful NFA stamp owners have two years to surrender or render inoperable a current FAF - confirmation of such will generate refund of $200 tax stamp fee and $1,000 for weapon value
  • Parts used to assist a non-FAF to perform without independent, discrete and intentional trigger pulls are illegal - bump stocks, forced reset triggers, Glock full auto sear, etc,

  • Federal pre-emption for all licensing, permiting, safety and other regulation of firearms

  • No state/local/federal firearm registration database

  • Continued immunity for firearm/ammo manufacturers/sellers/gunsmith for actions by users provided they are FFL compliant - but they remain liable for manufacturing defects/etc

  • Some type of reasonable safe storage requirement when lawful owner is not present

  • Banks, credit card companies, and internet companies operating under the Section 230 safe harbor may not discriminate against firearms/ammo manufacturers/sellers/users

  • A national carry permit (not just concealed) - basic training class + simple range test + background check - renewed every 10 years - this would be offered in addition to whatever state permits are provided

  • The federal govt will regulate marijuana in the same manner it regulates alcohol

  • The federal govt will grant clemency and expungement for all marijuana convictions

  • The federal govt will provide additional economic development grants to states that also grant clemency and expungement for all marijuana convictions

  • All sales of alcohol, marijuana, firearms, ammunition, ammunition reloading supplies, and firearm accessories will be subject to a nationwide 5% sales tax
  • All profits of social media companies with more than 1 million users in the US shall be subject to a 10% surcharge
  • All current federal funds allocated to marijuana enforcement will be carried over to this new fund
  • All sales of illegal drugs will be taxed via a 25% income tax surcharge to be collected by the IRS (I know there will be little collected, but heck it got Capone ;))
  • These cumulative funds would then be matched dollar for dollar by federal general funds
  • 50% of these funds will go improvement of mental health services/systems nationwide, including suicide prevention programs
  • 50% of these funds will go to high gun violence zip codes to fund additional economic development, mental health, education and police services in equal measure
 
Last edited:

elkduds

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Messages
2,972
Location
CO Springs.
I offer the following as appropriate in my mind for a hunting forum given the important role firearms have in hunting, the overlap between hunters and broader "shooting enthusiasts", and my faith in the broad judgment and experience of the HT community. Please keep this civil and please avoid generic anti-Dem/anti-GOP tropes.

I am a 2A proponent consistent with the boundaries of Heller. That being, a person has a 2A right to bear arms for, among other reasons, personal protection. At the same time, like every one of the rights guaranteed under our Constitution, certain carefully crafted regulation is possible.

As such, I grow weary of one side repackaging their wish list as "common sense", and equally grow weary of the other side pointing out all the social ills that are the "real root of violence" but then not funding any programs to address those ills.

In my view, "common-sense" legislation implicitly requires some degree of compromise - a move by both sides to the middle. So, while I know there are folks that will pan each and every idea I suggest below, I do believe if enacted together they could make a meaningful difference in gun violence and suicide while minimizing the overall net effects on the vast majority of gun owners.

----
These are in no particular order
  • Universal Background Checks for all transfers, sales or conveyances - the only exceptions are (i) for parent to child in presence of parent, (ii) parent to child for hunting where both are participants, (iii) hunting/shooting partner/instructor to partner/student at range or when hunting and (iv) to/from FFL holder
  • If after three days the check is not cleared, it can be extended an additional 30 days, but if the individual is eventually cleared, the govt will give them a 25% rebate on the purchase price for the 30 day hassle/delay
  • The Fed govt will continue to invest in improved background check databases and functionality
  • A fully funded and staffed system for timely restoration of firearms rights for anyone who has not committed a crime where they shot another person and is otherwise deemed safe/rehabilitated

  • Self-made firearms may not be made by any person who is inelligible to purchase under the Universal Background Check criterea
  • Self-made firearms may not be sold/transferred/conveyed to any other person without proper serialization

  • Fed funds provided to states/local govt for law enforcement, prisons, and emergency medical services will be subject to active enforcement, prosecution and sentencing of existing firearms laws.

  • Federal red flag system using due process standards similar to civil commitment with timely and reliable return of firearms after the situation no longer supports continued "committment" status
  • Strong criminal penalties for misuse of red flag system by those initiating the action

  • NFA rules around SBR/shotgun length/supressors/etc are gone - a firearm is a firearm, size, shape, and color have no impact on regulation other than a continued minimum metal requirement

  • Fully automatic firearms (FAF) are illegal for any person other than military in course of duties
  • Current lawful NFA stamp owners have two years to surrender or render inoperable a current FAF - confirmation of such will generate refund of $200 tax stamp fee and $1,000 for weapon value
  • Parts used to assist a non-FAF to perform without independent, discrete and intentional trigger pulls are illegal - bump stocks, forced reset triggers, Glock full auto sear, etc,

  • Federal pre-emption for all licensing, permiting, safety and other regulation of firearms

  • No state/local/federal firearm registration database

  • Continued immunity for firearm/ammo manufacturers/sellers/gunsmith for actions by users provided they are FFL compliant - but they remain liable for manufacturing defects/etc

  • Some type of reasonable safe storage requirement when lawful owner is not present

  • Banks, credit card companies, and internet companies operating under the Section 230 safe harbor may not discriminate against firearms/ammo manufacturers/sellers/users

  • A national carry permit (not just concealed) - basic training class + simple range test + background check - renewed every 10 years - this would be offered in addition to whatever state permits are provided

  • The federal govt will regulate maijuana in the same manner it regulates alcohol

  • The federal govt will grant clemency and expungement for all marijuana convictions

  • The federal govt will provide additional economic development grants to states that also grant clemency and expungement for all marijuana convictions

  • All sales of alcohol, marijuana, firearms, ammunition, ammunition reloading supplies, and firearm accessories will be subject to a nationwide 5% sales tax
  • All profits of social media companies with more than 1 million users in the US shall be subject to a 10% surcharge
  • All current federal funds allocated to marijuana enforcement will be carried over to this new fund
  • All sales of illegal drugs will be taxed via a 25% income tax surcharge to be collected by the IRS (I know there will be little collected, but heck it got Capone ;))
  • These cumulative funds would then be matched dollar for dollar by federal general funds
  • 50% of these funds will go improvement of mental health services/systems nationwide, including suicide prevention programs
  • 50% of these funds will go to high gun violence zip codes to fund additional economic development, mental health, education and police services in equal measure
That is quite a list, and as good a starting place as any. Kudos for posting, @VikingsGuy. Your brush is broad, sir. Definitely agree w periodic renewal for any carry permit, more like 5 year interval, and the criteria you listed for issue/renewal.
 

SAJ-99

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
2,469
Location
E Washington
The Fed govt will continue to invest in improved background check databases and functionality.

No state/local/federal firearm registration database


You always have great thoughts on this subject. I like the list but these two have always been a problem too hard for politicians to figure out. I think I get the point you are trying to make and how you would argue it should be structured. However, a good background check would have to include a keeping of the record the background check was done and that would be an implied registry. Or so the argument goes.
 

ElkFever2

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 4, 2019
Messages
3,915
Location
Iowa
I know you put a lot of work into this. Here are my concerns:
1. The overwhelming majority of countries that permit personal gun ownership have onerous laws for the purchase, transfer, possession, and registration of firearms. I really enjoy the convenience of not having to navigate a mile of red tape every time I want to purchase, sell, or transfer of guns and ammunition. A comprehensive set of gun reforms seems good in theory, but my concern is we'd just end up like every other over-regulated country.
2. Reading actual proposals put forth by gun control advocates, there are a lot of changes being promoted that consist of 99% punishment of law-abiding gun owners, and 1% making a dent in gun violence. It's perpetually annoying, as a responsible gun owner, to be continuously facing attacks that impede my ability to own and use firearms. Personally, I don't even really like guns...but they are great hunting and personal defense tools. If/when the major voices in the gun control lobby refocus their attention to targeting gun violence that is not at the overwhelming expense of law-abiding gun owners, I'd be much more interested in trying to compromise on finding solutions.
3. Guns are tools. If we got rid of every gun in America tomorrow ALL the social rot remains. Socially disaffected persons will continue to turn to mass violence towards others, and they will use different tools. Drive trucks into crowds, poisons, explosives, whatever. Would there be less violence in our country? I doubt it. I anticipate we would see a dip in the lethality of violence, but perhaps less than we'd hope for.
4. More government is not always better. There are a plethora of, usually well-intentioned, federal and state laws, policies, practices, programs, etc. that fuel, perpetuate, feed, and magnify social ills, such as inequality, voting disenfranchisement, employment barriers, housing discrimination, wealth disparity, healthcare access, etc. Our tax dollars at work to perpetuate social rot. Just one example, look at the millions of our own citizens that we incarcerate, higher than any other nation in the world. Step 1 in reducing gun violence is gut our governments of all the counterproductive nonsense they do.
5. We are in dire need of mental health advocacy in our country. It's time to start calling out all the politicians on the right for blaming the "mentally ill" for all gun violence. These claims are intentionally false. A bogeyman that distracts from many of the core issues contributing to gun violence. We do need better mental health care in our country, for the sake of persons who need that treatment. If reduced gun violence is a added bonus of that, great.

Rant: There's a lot of have-not's in America. We make it really difficult for people to participate in our society in a pro-social manner. We structure our laws to destroy families, keep people poor, keep people from working good jobs, keep kids from being raised by their parents, keep people from living, working, learning in a safe and healthy places, and disenfranchise people at the ballot box. If we look towards a bigger government as the fix to these issues, we get exactly what we deserve - inefficient, corrupt, cancerous, money-pit.
 

220yotekiller

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2017
Messages
324
I know you put a lot of work into this. Here are my concerns:
1. The overwhelming majority of countries that permit personal gun ownership have onerous laws for the purchase, transfer, possession, and registration of firearms. I really enjoy the convenience of not having to navigate a mile of red tape every time I want to purchase, sell, or transfer of guns and ammunition. A comprehensive set of gun reforms seems good in theory, but my concern is we'd just end up like every other over-regulated country.
2. Reading actual proposals put forth by gun control advocates, there are a lot of changes being promoted that consist of 99% punishment of law-abiding gun owners, and 1% making a dent in gun violence. It's perpetually annoying, as a responsible gun owner, to be continuously facing attacks that impede my ability to own and use firearms. Personally, I don't even really like guns...but they are great hunting and personal defense tools. If/when the major voices in the gun control lobby refocus their attention to targeting gun violence that is not at the overwhelming expense of law-abiding gun owners, I'd be much more interested in trying to compromise on finding solutions.
3. Guns are tools. If we got rid of every gun in America tomorrow ALL the social rot remains. Socially disaffected persons will continue to turn to mass violence towards others, and they will use different tools. Drive trucks into crowds, poisons, explosives, whatever. Would there be less violence in our country? I doubt it. I anticipate we would see a dip in the lethality of violence, but perhaps less than we'd hope for.
4. More government is not always better. There are a plethora of, usually well-intentioned, federal and state laws, policies, practices, programs, etc. that fuel, perpetuate, feed, and magnify social ills, such as inequality, voting disenfranchisement, employment barriers, housing discrimination, wealth disparity, healthcare access, etc. Our tax dollars at work to perpetuate social rot. Just one example, look at the millions of our own citizens that we incarcerate, higher than any other nation in the world. Step 1 in reducing gun violence is gut our governments of all the counterproductive nonsense they do.
5. We are in dire need of mental health advocacy in our country. It's time to start calling out all the politicians on the right for blaming the "mentally ill" for all gun violence. These claims are intentionally false. A bogeyman that distracts from many of the core issues contributing to gun violence. We do need better mental health care in our country, for the sake of persons who need that treatment. If reduced gun violence is a added bonus of that, great.

Rant: There's a lot of have-not's in America. We make it really difficult for people to participate in our society in a pro-social manner. We structure our laws to destroy families, keep people poor, keep people from working good jobs, keep kids from being raised by their parents, keep people from living, working, learning in a safe and healthy places, and disenfranchise people at the ballot box. If we look towards a bigger government as the fix to these issues, we get exactly what we deserve - inefficient, corrupt, cancerous, money-pit.
Well said
 

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
8,894
Location
Twin Cities
You always have great thoughts on this subject. I like the list but these two have always been a problem too hard for politicians to figure out. I think I get the point you are trying to make and how you would argue it should be structured. However, a good background check would have to include a keeping of the record the background check was done and that would be an implied registry. Or so the argument goes.
I have to show ID at a local liquor store but that doesn't create a data registry. I can get a ticket for speeding but even though my truck likely stores all kinds of info on speed etc, it doesn't report them to a federal log of all my speeding activity. There are all kinds of legally regulated activities that don't require long term tracking. Of course, it could be argued it would be better with the full tracking, but this is meant to be a list of compromises. For me, I am willing to tighten the current system up quite a bit, but not willing to go that far.
 
Last edited:

SFC B

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
3,969
Location
Colorado Springs
I can't say that I have a problem with any of those.....the only real finesse point for me would be value and some sort of reimbursement to those losing FAFs. Folks have some serious $$$$$ wrapped up in some collections and I would pose that they would be subject to a "taking" by the government requiring a fair valuation.
 

Dsnow9

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2019
Messages
1,748
Location
Colorado
I think you have some good ideas and points. The way the amendment is written though I do not believe there should be any regulations on firearms, no age restrictions, weapons restrictions or anything of the sort. If anything was to be regulated I believe there would need to be an amendment to the constitution. When it was written there were privateers with war ships contracted by our government. I guess it’s not that different than companies like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin but…

Thanks for posting @VikingsGuy! I think your list provokes thought and conversation, I just think that whole conversation misses the point of what the constitution says.
 

ajrcktts

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
2,267
Location
East TN
  • 50% of these funds will go to high gun violence zip codes to fund additional economic development, mental health, education and police services in equal measure

Honestly this was the one that stuck in craw. I don't trust the government, federal or local, to wisely use those funds. And, after looking at how some non-profits spend their money (think big salaries, little accomplishments), I don't particularly trust the ones that would somehow end up with the government contracts.

It sure would be nice if there was a few examples where throwing money at something, say education in poor communities, actually worked well to turn the situation around. But I don't recall seeing those success stories. Maybe I'm naïve to it, but it sure seems like that money ends up being a waste and nothing changes.

Lastly, I can't help but feel like it incentivizes bad behavior. That might be short-sighted, but that's my gut reaction.
 

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
8,894
Location
Twin Cities
I can't say that I have a problem with any of those.....the only real finesse point for me would be value and some sort of reimbursement to those losing FAFs. Folks have some serious $$$$$ wrapped up in some collections and I would pose that they would be subject to a "taking" by the government requiring a fair valuation.
I bounced that around a fair amount in my head before settling on that somewhat nominal number. In general, the US govt does not reimburse people when they change the laws - maybe they should, but it is not a "taking" according to SCOTUS.
 

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
8,894
Location
Twin Cities
I think you have some good ideas and points. The way the amendment is written though I do not believe there should be any regulations on firearms, no age restrictions, weapons restrictions or anything of the sort. If anything was to be regulated I believe there would need to be an amendment to the constitution. When it was written there were privateers with war ships contracted by our government. I guess it’s not that different than companies like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin but…

Thanks for posting @VikingsGuy! I think your list provokes thought and conversation, I just think that whole conversation misses the point of what the constitution says.
Thanks for responding and sharing your thoughts. I do not intend to be argumentative, but do want to respectfully push back on this approach.

Please point to a single personal right/liberty that is not subject to some govt restriction? Free speech - nope, freedom of religion - nope, search and seizure - nope, right to vote - nope (think felons), human life - nope (think death penalty) etc etc etc. We can never progress in any constitutional topic if folks don't even accept the general framework that has governed it since the founders. Our founding father's absolutely supported laws that infringed speech when it came to libel/slander/profanity/pornography etc etc for example. There were many examples of gun restrictions in the thirteen colonies along the way and in later states as we moved west.

I get the rejection of the proposed limitations if you think they would be too invasive, too unlikely to have a positive effect, too difficult to effectively manage, too expensive, or any number of other objections. But the objection cannot be that zero limitations are demanded by the constitution. I don't know of a single justice in the last 250 yrs or a single serious scholar that has taken such an extreme view on the Bill of Rights.
 
Last edited:

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
8,894
Location
Twin Cities
Numbers 1, 8, and 11-13 are a no go for me sorry, but the rest is pretty decent.
There are some on my own list I don't like, but do believe with some of the "gets" in the list it nets out as a positive in the end. Of course, either side can and do hold firm on every point, but my post was offered as a "give a little to get a little" pitch.
 

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
8,894
Location
Twin Cities
Honestly this was the one that stuck in craw. I don't trust the government, federal or local, to wisely use those funds. And, after looking at how some non-profits spend their money (think big salaries, little accomplishments), I don't particularly trust the ones that would somehow end up with the government contracts.

It sure would be nice if there was a few examples where throwing money at something, say education in poor communities, actually worked well to turn the situation around. But I don't recall seeing those success stories. Maybe I'm naïve to it, but it sure seems like that money ends up being a waste and nothing changes.

Lastly, I can't help but feel like it incentivizes bad behavior. That might be short-sighted, but that's my gut reaction.
Yeah, I have a lot of govt skeptic in me. But at this point in a nation this large there is no chance the free market and "boot straps" alone will fix the hole we have dug in some of these locals - and I am not just talking urban Chicago, I am also thinking mostly white meth-ladened smaller communities in Ohio.
 

A207X2

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2020
Messages
309
Location
SW Florida and N. Georgia
There are some on my own list I don't like, but do believe with some of the "gets" in the list it nets out as a positive in the end. Of course, either side can and do hold firm on every point, but my post was offered as a "give a little to get a little" pitch.
What are you getting in return for your ”give a little”?
 

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
8,894
Location
Twin Cities
I know you put a lot of work into this. Here are my concerns:
1. The overwhelming majority of countries that permit personal gun ownership have onerous laws for the purchase, transfer, possession, and registration of firearms. I really enjoy the convenience of not having to navigate a mile of red tape every time I want to purchase, sell, or transfer of guns and ammunition. A comprehensive set of gun reforms seems good in theory, but my concern is we'd just end up like every other over-regulated country.
2. Reading actual proposals put forth by gun control advocates, there are a lot of changes being promoted that consist of 99% punishment of law-abiding gun owners, and 1% making a dent in gun violence. It's perpetually annoying, as a responsible gun owner, to be continuously facing attacks that impede my ability to own and use firearms. Personally, I don't even really like guns...but they are great hunting and personal defense tools. If/when the major voices in the gun control lobby refocus their attention to targeting gun violence that is not at the overwhelming expense of law-abiding gun owners, I'd be much more interested in trying to compromise on finding solutions.
3. Guns are tools. If we got rid of every gun in America tomorrow ALL the social rot remains. Socially disaffected persons will continue to turn to mass violence towards others, and they will use different tools. Drive trucks into crowds, poisons, explosives, whatever. Would there be less violence in our country? I doubt it. I anticipate we would see a dip in the lethality of violence, but perhaps less than we'd hope for.
4. More government is not always better. There are a plethora of, usually well-intentioned, federal and state laws, policies, practices, programs, etc. that fuel, perpetuate, feed, and magnify social ills, such as inequality, voting disenfranchisement, employment barriers, housing discrimination, wealth disparity, healthcare access, etc. Our tax dollars at work to perpetuate social rot. Just one example, look at the millions of our own citizens that we incarcerate, higher than any other nation in the world. Step 1 in reducing gun violence is gut our governments of all the counterproductive nonsense they do.
5. We are in dire need of mental health advocacy in our country. It's time to start calling out all the politicians on the right for blaming the "mentally ill" for all gun violence. These claims are intentionally false. A bogeyman that distracts from many of the core issues contributing to gun violence. We do need better mental health care in our country, for the sake of persons who need that treatment. If reduced gun violence is a added bonus of that, great.

Rant: There's a lot of have-not's in America. We make it really difficult for people to participate in our society in a pro-social manner. We structure our laws to destroy families, keep people poor, keep people from working good jobs, keep kids from being raised by their parents, keep people from living, working, learning in a safe and healthy places, and disenfranchise people at the ballot box. If we look towards a bigger government as the fix to these issues, we get exactly what we deserve - inefficient, corrupt, cancerous, money-pit.
While I wouldn't go as far as you did, there is a lot in this I can agree with.
 
Top