Write Your Own Gun Laws - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

hrdwareguy · 05-10-2005, 01:05 PM

OK, so after debates in other threads about good legislation, bad legislation, practical, impractical and everything else in the mix, I figured I'd start this thread. Please take some time to think about your response before posting.

This is your opportunity to create from scratch your own gun laws.

Backgroun
Let us assume that the federal government were to take control of regulating all firearms again instead of making it a states issue. You have been selected to write the legislation for gun control, sales, ammo, who can and can't own them, the whole nine yards. What would you do?

Keep in mind we would be working in current context so you will have to take into account all the guns currently in circulation and deal with how to handle them.

Rules
There are very few rules. The most important rule is

NO BASHING SOMEONE ELSE'S LAWS

If you like a law and want to use it as well, fine. If you don't like a law and would like to point out how it may not work, fine. Telling someone their laws are stupid will not be tolerated.

Lets see what we can all come up with.

cuervo · 05-10-2005, 01:34 PM

There would be no laws regarding ownership and there would no longer be dealers. Convicted crimminals would have their rights reinstated after they had served their time. Crime with a gun would be treated like a crime with any other weapon. Parents and the children would be responsible for the children's actions. Basically, a return to pre-1934.

Lebell · 05-10-2005, 02:36 PM

Good thread!

Ok, If I were the king of the forest....

-The Second Amendment would be rewritten to clearly state that it is the individual's right to own firearms.

-Firearm registration would be a reality...yes, you heard right. Because there would be NO, ABSOLUTELY NO danger of having them confiscated by a zealous government gone anti-gun.

-Class 3 weapons would be manufactured and available, but the current criminal background check would be enforced just like now.

-Gun laws would be vigorously enforced. You commit a gun crime, you go to jail...for a very very long time.

-National Concealed Carry Cards. You would have to take a class and pass a proficiency test as well as a background check, but you could carry nationally. Post Office, school, court, no problem. I might even be open to periodically requalifying for your Card.

-No penalty for non-violent felonies. The way things are now is BS in my opinion. If you didn't hurt someone or could have hurt someone when you committed your crime, once your debt is paid, it's PAID.

-No more crap laws like the AWB, ballistics databases, or other laws that are feelgood BS. BUT! Better policing of gun dealers too. If one dealer seems to be a major supplier for straw purchasers, then that should be DEALT WITH.

-Add gun safety to the curriculum at the grade school level and let rifle clubs flourish at the highschool level.

Anyhoo, those are my off-the-cuff thoughts.

MooseMan3000 · 05-10-2005, 04:04 PM

Hm... this is hard. There are lots of different factors to consider, and I'm sure I'm going to forget something. I'm going to think about this for a bit, see what I can come up with. I agree, good thread.

soundmotor · 05-10-2005, 05:04 PM

Vermont would set the example for the rest of the nation, to paraphrase, you cannot have/use/carry a gun for an unlawful purpose. Beyond that, there is not much else to say.

soundmotor

timalkin · 05-10-2005, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuervo

There would be no laws regarding ownership and there would no longer be dealers. Convicted crimminals would have their rights reinstated after they had served their time. Crime with a gun would be treated like a crime with any other weapon. Parents and the children would be responsible for the children's actions. Basically, a return to pre-1934.

That sounds like a winner to me.

CandleInTheDark · 05-10-2005, 06:15 PM

All owners will be required to being properly (and strictly) trained and tested, before being issued a licence. Such a licence would be good for any small arm.

Violations and crime involving guns would be strictly enforced and severely punished.

MSD · 05-10-2005, 08:09 PM

This is to replace everyday gun laws. The NFA regulations for purhcases of Class III firearms will remain in effect, but all firearms that had previously been entirely banned may be imported, manufactured, and sold legally.

Section I: Ownership and posession

1: No person shall be denied the right to purchase and own a firearm, and to have it in his or her posession in any public place unless otherwise prohibited from owning firearms under subsection 2 of this law. Individuals may purchase handguns only with proof that they have satisfactorily completed a NRA-approved firearm safety test for handgun owners. No person under the age of 18 may posess a handgun unlesss in the presence of a person who is legally permitted to own this handgun, and may not carry a handgun on his or her person outside of property on which he or she legally resides.

2: The right of any person who legally resides in the United States to own a firearm may only be revoked by due process of law and in the following situations:

a: The person has been indicted or convicted for a misdemeanor or felonious violent crime and in the following circumstances:

i: The judge or grand jury presiding over a case has reason to believe that a suspect who has posted bail is highly likely to use his or her firearm in a criminal manner before the conclusion of the trial.
ii: A court rules that a person is not mentally capable of legally and safely owning and operating a firearm.
iii: A judge or jury believes that a person's posession of a firearm poses a clear and present danger to other persons and that this danger cannot be removed except by the revocation of the individual's right to own firearms.
iv: A convicted criminal is prohibited from legally owning firearms under any section of this law

Section II: Crimes committed with firearms

1: Misdemeanors and Felonies committed with firearms

a: Any person who is convicted of a violent or coercive misdemeanor while in posession of a firearm, regardless of whether the firearm was used in the comission of the crime, will recieve an additional sentence of 7 (seven) years in addition to any other sentences related to this crime. This additional sentence may not in any circumstance be suspended or reduced, and during the first 7 (seven) years of imprisonment the criminal may not be released or paroled.

i: Upon release, the person who was convicted under Section II:1:a of this legislation may not legally posess any firearm for an additional 5 (five) years.

b: Any person who is convicted of a violent or coercive felony while in posession of a firearm, regardless of whether the firearm was used in the comission of the crime, will recieve an additional sentence of 14 (fourteen) years in addition to any other sentences related to this crime. This additional sentence may not in any circumstance be suspended or reduced, and during the first 14 (fourteen) years of imprisonment the criminal may not be released or paroled.

i: Upon release, the person who was convicted under Section II:1:b of this legislation may not legally posess any firearm for an additional 10 (ten) years.

c: No sentence may be extended beyond normal sentencing guidelenes because of the convict's posession of a firearm unless otherwise specified in this law.

2: Other crimes committed with firearms

a: Any person who is found to be storing or carrying a firearm in a way that presents a clear and present danger to the well-being of others may be issued a fine, not to exceed $1000 for the first offense, and be subject to no more than one inspection by law enforcement personnel at a mutually convenient time to ensure that the person corrects the unsafe situation.

b: Any person who, through gross negligence or malicious intent provides a firearm to a person who may not legally posess it, and the firearm is safely recovered, may be fined not more than $1000 for the first offense.

i: Any person who commits a second offense as defined under Section II:2:a-b may be subject to revocation of the right to own firearms for no more than 30 (thirty) days. During this time, the person's firearms and ammunition may be transferred to an appropriate temporary holder, or in the absence of a temporary holder, stored at the nearest police station for a reasonalbe storage fee.

c: Any private owner or dealer who, through gross negligence or malicious intent provides a firearm to a person who subsequently uses that firearm in the comission of a violent or coercive crime may be tried and sentenced as if he or she had committed that crime. No person who has taken reasonable precaution to prevent criminal use of his or her firearms, nor any person who would have no reasonable cause to expect the illegal use of his or her firearm, may be prosecuted for any crime committed with that firearm. No sentence issued under this section may exceed life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

I'm half asleep. I hope my attempts at lawyer-speak are coherent and comprehensible.

hrdwareguy · 05-11-2005, 01:32 PM

Some good responses so far, thanks for the thoughtful input. Since I didn't have time to add my own when I created the thread, I'll do so now.

Ownership
1) Every legal US Citizen over the age of 18 can (and should) own firearms with the following exceptions :

A) People diagnosed with any mental disorder,

B) People who have been convicted on any crime where a firearm was present (used in commission of crime or not), would have ownership privilages revoked,

C) Any person who has had a VPO file against them shall have ownership revoked if the courts believe leaving firearms in the persons posession is a threat to the person who filed the VPO. This revokation shall last for the term of the VPO or as long as the people live within 300 miles of each other.

2) There shall exist a national training/safety course that everyone wishing to own a firearm must take. Once the class is completed, they will be issued a gun permit allwoing them to purchase firearms. This license would have to be renewed every 10 years.

3) There would exist a national Concealed Carry Permit. This permit would consist of additional training aside from the standard training/safety permit. This permit would have to be renewed every 5 years.

Failure to comply with the ownership laws or providing an excluded person with a firearm will result in loss of license and forfeiture of firearms with no compensation. If the excluded person commits a crime with a firearm provided by someone else, that person will face the same charges as the person who committed the crime.

Purchasing/Sales
1) When purchasing a firearm, the purchaser must present their training/safty card. It is the responsibility of the seller to conduct a NICS check to make sure the person is still eligable to purchase firearms.

2) If an individual sells a firearm, it is the responsibility of the seller to maintain a record of who they sold the firearm to, when they sold it, a description of the firearm (including serial number) and the license number of the person they sold it to.

- OR -

The seller can have a dealer conduct the transaction for them, in which case the dealer shall be responsible for maintaining the appropriate records and the seller shall be issued a receipt from the dealer.

Failure to follow the Purchasing/Selling Laws will result in loss of license (dealer or individual) and forfiture of firearms with no compensation (Non sole proprieter dealers shall have 5 business days to transfer firearms to another store that has a license).

[b]Types of Firearms[\b]
No restrictions on the types of firearms to be sold would exist

Manufacturers
Manufacturers would be required to submit a balistics test and a spent shell casing to a federally maintained database for every handgun, rifle and/or barrel manufacturerd.

Failure of a manufacturer to submit balistics and spent shell casings would result in revokation of manufacturers license.

That's about it for now. Law enforcement officials would not be immune from the above laws. They would of course get the training/safety course and the concealed permit course along with any other departmental training.

this still leaves the problem of existing firearms already on the market. You could have a registration period, but I don't think that would go over well. And then again, you still have the black market. I suppose existing firearms could end up in the system as they are sold, as long as they aren't sold to an individual.

I think this puts more responsibility in the hands of gun owners. If you sell it, you better know who you are selling it to and get some information from them in case they commit a crime with a gun that was registered to you.

And like Lebell said, Gun Safety for all...even classes for the parents.

Acetylene · 05-11-2005, 02:58 PM

No gun control at all. The world revolved before 1930 and it did so with less gun violence. Punish those who commit crimes and don't let potential murders back into society and end the stupid war on drugs that is the source of so much violence and also incubates the culture of violence in certain groups.

Oops... this is Kel posting on Acetylenes computer.

MooseMan3000 · 05-13-2005, 01:27 AM

Alright, I've been too tired after work the past few days to post, but now I can't sleep (3:30 AM? Looks like a good time for TFP) so here goes. I doubt I've gotten it all yet.

Gun ownership/registration:

-Second Amendment is changed to specify that all persons over 18 have the right to own firearms, with exceptions laid out by law. I think the Second Amendment as it's worded now does not support private ownership, but I think it should.

-A national safety course is established, and only accredited schools or individuals may teach it. Safety course includes at least several hours of classroom time to cover general gun operation, cleaning, etc, as well as safe gun handling and storage. Course also includes mandatory range time to familiarize yourself with a firearm, and a certified instructor must be present during this range time. Every first time purchaser must take this course and pass both a written and physical profiency test (including an eyesight test) to obtain a firearms license. If you fail the test, you have to take the course again. No exceptions. Your license must be renewed every 10 years. To renew, you must take the test again, but you don't need to take the course again.

-Specialized courses exist for Class III weapon licenses with simliar requirements to the general ownership license. These licenses must be obtained in addition to general ownership license. They must be renewed every 5 years.

-Specialized courses exist for concealed carry licenses, again with similar requirements. Again, it must be obtained in addition to the general ownership license. These must be renewed every 5 years.

-All licenses are registered in a national database. When a person wishes to purchase a firearm, he must present the license to the dealer, who must then check it against the national database for authenticity. Failure to do so is a felony. Attempting to purchase a firearm without a license is a misdemeanor, attempting to purchase with a false license is a felony.

-Anyone who is not licensed may not possess a firearm, unless in the presence of a licensed individual, who legally assumes full responsibility for unlicensed person's actions. It is a felony to possess a firearm without a license unsupervised.

-The courses can be run by private organizations, and will have fees associated with them, but the tests and license distribution will all be run by government agencies and will be free of charge. One must provide proof of having completed a course to be allowed to take the test.

-People prohibited from ownership:
1) Any person with any mental disorder.
2) Any person convicted of any violent felony.
3) Any person convicted of any felony involving firearms.
4) Any person convicted of a misdemeanor involving a firearm will have license priveleges revoked for no less than 5 years and no more than 10 years, and must take ownership course again to renew license.

-Every firearm purchased must be registered in a national database. Information on each firearm will include a spent shall casing. It will also include time and place of purchase, time and place of manufacture, and individual who sold the firearm. Failure to provide complete evidence, or misrepresentation of evidence, is a felony.

-Existing firearms will be added to the national database in a registration period... maybe 5 years? If the gun is sold, it will also be added.

-Anyone who now owns a gun will be required to be licensed. They must take the course and obtain a license within 2 years.

-All guns must be sold through a licensed dealer. Dealers will be mandated to perform private transactions at a minimal fee. Selling a firearm privately without a dealership license is a felony.

Manufacture of firearms:

-All new firearms sold in the United States must conform to a standard for manufacture. I'm not exactly sure what is needed on this one, but the main reason I bring this up is the case mentioned in the other thread where a gun had to have the safety catch off in order to reload. I believe all guns should be designed to be reloaded with the safety on OR off. There are also other safety requirements, like the material used, thickness, etc, but I don't want to worry about the specifics yet.
-All manufacturers must have a license, and that license is costly. Again, the specifics I'm not too sure on, but we want to make sure everyone who makes a firearm is reputable. This license will be renewed yearly (at a lower cost than the initial licensing fee)
-Firearm manufacturer is responsible for providing the spent shell casing for national database.
-Manufacturing plants are subject to periodic inspections to ensure compliance.
-Failure to comply with standards will mean revokation of license, with no possibility of getting another. If the company is reformed or bought out, it can apply for a license again.

-Ammunution manufacturers will have a separate license (which is less expensive, but still not cheap).
-Ammunition manufacture will be held to strict standards for safety.
-Same requirements as a firearm manufacturing license as far as compliance and licensing go.

Firearm crimes/liability:

-Anyone involved in the "life" of a firearm (from manufacture right down to the crime) can be held liable for its use, if and only if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they were either malicious or negligent. Example: If a person sells a gun to an unlicensed individual with the knowledge that the person is unlicensed, and that individual commits a murder, the seller can be sued (and of course, he loses his license). Alternatively, if a firearm misfunctions and causes injury, and it can be proven that it was the negligence of the manufacturer or an individual employee of the manufacturer, they can be sued, and will most likely lose their license.
-Actually, that's about it. I think most other crimes are already covered in other sections. Of course murder, etc. (isn't that a book, or perhaps a daytime television show?) is still a felony.

Random things that I forgot to include in other places, or things I read in other responses that I stole:

-If an unregistered gun is found in anyone's possession after registration period, the gun is revoked without compensation, and the person serves a mandatory prison period. This is a felony.
-No restrictions on the types of firearms sold. It's just regulated with the licensing system.
-Anyone found to be transporting a firearm in a manner so as to cause a safety hazard to others will be fined and have license suspended for a set number of days.
-OUI is a misdemeanor and follows penalties outlined above.
-I toyed with the idea of mandatory firearm insurance (mostly to cover accidents, like hunting accidents), but I couldn't think of a reasonable way to do it. I think it was probably a bad idea, but I thought I'd mention it.
-Of course law enforcement officers are held to the same standards. The licensing and classes would be part of training. Military personell may only use their military weapons, and then only when they're on duty, unless they have their own private license.

Alright, after over an hour trying to remember everything I thought of and type it all out, I think I'm done. I'm sure I've forgotten something, but this is a mostly complete list.

Obviously, the most important part of my laws are the ownership licenses. I think that we should have a much stricter system than we do for ownership. Everyone here knows that when you want to buy your first firearm, you should take a safety course. So why isn't it mandatory? I took many of my ideas from driving laws, as I think many of the same principles apply. Anyone who wants to own a gun has to have a license. Simple.

Then we need much more control over who's selling the guns. If we require licenses to buy a gun, but every Joe can go sell a 10 guage to his cousin (or some guy who pays him a couple thousand a gun), it sort of defeats the purpose, eh?

To those of you who said "No gun laws because it was better before the 1930s,"
...
Are you serious?

You do realize that in the 20s gangsters had shootouts with police on public roads on almost a daily basis, and they almost always killed bystanders, right? The number of gun crimes may have been lower, but the population was about a third of what it is now, and much fewer guns (I can't find the numbers, if they exist) were in existence. The number of gun owners was much, much lower, so of course there were fewer crimes. That's like saying there were fewer automobile accidents. Of course there were.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

No penalty for non-violent felonies. The way things are now is BS in my opinion. If you didn't hurt someone or could have hurt someone when you committed your crime, once your debt is paid, it's PAID.

I disagree. If someone threatens to kill a person with a gun, then ends up running away, he should still be held accountable as if he actually did commit the murder. He's demonstrated that he's excitable, shall we say, and is likely to at least threaten again in the future, if not go through with it. It's the same reason that people with mental disorders should not be allowed to possess firearms. The guy's clearly unstable.

After previewing my post, may I say "Holy shit, this is long." And it doesn't even go into many specifics.

Daniel_ · 05-13-2005, 01:42 AM

As a brit, I find guns quite alarming.

I'd say ban all guns execpt in the hands of highly trained members of accountable organisations. Currently they are the Police, the Military and certain branches of the Secret Service in the UK, and I think that's about right.

I know that the founding fathers idea in the States was to ensure that the citizens could raise a militia, and if you still want that option, I'd suggest that you can only have a gun on those terms if you have been trained, and tested, and have secure facilities to look after it. You should have to go through psych evaluations, and competence testing. The range of weapons allowed should be restricted to ones that wound rather than blow holes in houses - if you look at current battlefield trends they are to have small caliabre weapons - a wounded soldier needs looking after, a dead one can be walked away from.

The problem is that you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

The only way to neutralise all the guns in the hands of nutters already is to make them useless, and the only way to do that (seeing as they are not going to had the guns over) is to make ammo hard to get.

So - make ammunition ridiculously expensive, and make it scarce. BUT make sure that the legitimate militia that you want to have, have their own access to ammo at the militia's own armoury.

It's interesting to me that in a country where a citizens militia helped establish a form of democracy (like the US) people like it. In a country where a private army allowed a dedicated band of fanatics to usurp the state (i.e. the SD/SA in 1930s Germany) the idea seems less atractive.

The simple fact is that whatever the arguments in favour of private gun ownership, in the US more people die from gunshots than they do in the UK.

Less guns = less gun deaths and crimes. It's a simple equation.

Lebell · 05-13-2005, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MooseMan3000

I disagree. If someone threatens to kill a person with a gun, then ends up running away, he should still be held accountable as if he actually did commit the murder. He's demonstrated that he's excitable, shall we say, and is likely to at least threaten again in the future, if not go through with it. It's the same reason that people with mental disorders should not be allowed to possess firearms. The guy's clearly unstable.

Actually, if you re-read my post, that's what I said.

In your example, he "could" have hurt someone and therefore shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

MSD · 05-13-2005, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel_

The simple fact is that whatever the arguments in favour of private gun ownership, in the US more people die from gunshots than they do in the UK.

Less guns = less gun deaths and crimes. It's a simple equation.

The simple fact is that there are a lot more people and a lot more guns in the US than in the UK. There's no way to get rid of all of them, so the best thing we can do is to make sure that everyone who is willing to do so is fully capable of defending themselves from the bad guys. The bad guys will always find a way to hurt us, so I want a way to stop them. I believe that while gun deaths have gone down since the UK restricted firearm ownership, reports other violent crime have gone way up, and the violent crime rate has stayed the same or increased. A man who wants to kill you or mug you will do it whether or not he has a gun.

Stick · 05-13-2005, 09:57 PM

Here in Oz there were no gun laws until 1915. The murder rate before 1915 was .3 deaths per 100,000 more than it is today.
I vote for no gun laws at all, but if you're convicted of a violent crime you should be hung. Immediately after the trial. No ifs or buts or insanity defence.

MooseMan3000 · 05-14-2005, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Actually, if you re-read my post, that's what I said.

In your example, he "could" have hurt someone and therefore shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

Ah, I misunderstood. I read it as "If you didn't hurt someone, or if you only could have hurt someone when you committed your crime..." I thought you meant only if you actually did the hurting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daniel_

It's interesting to me that in a country where a citizens militia helped establish a form of democracy (like the US) people like it. In a country where a private army allowed a dedicated band of fanatics to usurp the state (i.e. the SD/SA in 1930s Germany) the idea seems less atractive.

That's why we have the Second Amendment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Constitution of the United States of America

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The key words that many people seem to miss are the entire first phrase: "A well regulated militia." And the most important words of that phrase? "well regulated." That's why we're talking about this, because firearms need regulation. Without regulation, fanatical armies would be allowed to run amok.

MSD · 05-15-2005, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MooseMan3000

The key words that many people seem to miss are the entire first phrase: "A well regulated militia." And the most important words of that phrase? "well regulated." That's why we're talking about this, because firearms need regulation. Without regulation, fanatical armies would be allowed to run amok.

Common usage of "well-regulated" at the time it was written meant "properly operating," not that only an organized state militia can be armed.

paulskinback · 05-17-2005, 11:41 AM

The law would be that everyone is entitled to own a firearm and carry it on their person - and be allowed to use it for protection. No restrictions except for the usual past criminal convictions or mental instability.

This way, criminals who feel they need to use scare tactics in the form of a gun would be too scared to pull one out. Because pretty much everyone would be carrying a loaded weapon and be prepared to defend themselves.

It worked in the wild west.

YEE-HAA! (sorry - had to add that)

moosenose · 05-20-2005, 07:12 PM

All gun laws, including the NFA '34, repealed.
No permit required for CCW
Nobody convicted of a felony, dishonorably discharged from the military, or adjudicated mentally defective may possess a gun.
Crimes involving guns are punished exactly as harshly as crimes involving other weapons are punished. The operative thing would be the crime itself, not the choice of weaponry.

moosenose · 05-20-2005, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MooseMan3000

The key words that many people seem to miss are the entire first phrase: "A well regulated militia." And the most important words of that phrase? "well regulated." That's why we're talking about this, because firearms need regulation. Without regulation, fanatical armies would be allowed to run amok.

And anti-gun people often misread "right", "people", keep and bear arms", and "shall not be infringed".

It's a right, not a privilege. It belongs to the people, not the state. It's to both possess and carry ANY kind of arms, not just what's popular at any given moment or what doesn't scare the anti-gunners. And it shall not be infringed....not even a little bit.

dksuddeth · 04-19-2006, 03:49 PM

I'd repeal every gun law ever made except for the two small community laws (one in utah and the other in kennesaw, georgia). Mandatory gun ownership should definitely be a locality issue. (look up kennesaw, GA sometime. crime rate plummeted after that law)

No CCW. Carry a gun, carry it open.

No permit to carry.

No gun ownership prohibition, even felons. If you can't be trusted with a weapon, you don't deserve to be free.

unlawful use of a class 3 weapon will result in a capital crime. anyone assisting the unlawful use of a class 3 weapon will be charged with a capital crime.

Disband the BATFE.

remove special funding for police associated military gear. If there is a crime issue with too much firepower for the police to handle, the local militia (thats 'the people') will be summoned and deal with the issue.

The_Dunedan · 04-19-2006, 08:26 PM

The Security of a Free State best being defended by the armed nature of its' people in both individual and collective Militia capacities, the absolute Right of the People to keep and bear arms and ordinance, of any type whatever, shall on no account be infringed.

'Nuff said.

dksuddeth · 04-20-2006, 08:18 AM

This is why there are TWO types of militia, organized and unorganized, and why we as individuals should be just as well armed as the standing army and national guards.

Quote:

Ending a bitter coal-miners' strike, Colorado militiamen (read that as 'national guard') attack a tent colony of strikers, killing dozens of men, women, and children.

The conflict had begun the previous September. About 11,000 miners in southern Colorado went on strike against the powerful Colorado Fuel & Iron Corporation (CF&I) to protest low pay, dangerous working conditions, and the company's autocratic dominance over the workers' lives. The CF&I, which was owned by the Rockefeller family and Standard Oil, responded to the strike by immediately evicting the miners and their families from company-owned shacks. With help from the United Mine Workers, the miners moved with their families to canvas tent colonies scattered around the nearby hills and continued to strike.

When the evictions failed to end the strike, the Rockefeller interests hired private detectives that attacked the tent colonies with rifles and Gatling guns. The miners fought back(obviously exercising their right to self defense), and several were killed. When the tenacity of the strikers became apparent, the Rockefellers approached the governor of Colorado, who authorized the use of the National Guard. The Rockefellers agreed to pay their wages.

At first, the strikers believed that the government had sent the National Guard to protect them. They soon discovered, though, that the militia was under orders to break the strike. On this day in 1914, two companies of guardsmen attacked the largest tent colony of strikers near the town of Ludlow, home to about 1,000 men, women, and children. The attack began in the morning with a barrage of bullets fired into the tents. The miners shot back with pistols and rifles.

After a strike leader was killed while attempting to negotiate a truce, the strikers feared the attack would intensify. To stay safe from gunfire, women and children took cover in pits dug beneath the tents. At dusk, guardsmen moved down from the hills and set the tent colony on fire with torches, shooting at the families as they fled into the hills. The true carnage, however, was not discovered until the next day, when a telephone linesman discovered a pit under one of the tents filled with the burned remains of 11 children and 2 women.

Although the "Ludlow Massacre" outraged many Americans, the tragedy did little to help the beleaguered Colorado miners and their families. Additional federal troops crushed the coal-miners' strike, and the miners failed to achieve recognition of their union or any significant improvement in their wages and working conditions. Sixty-six men, women, and children died during the strike, but not a single militiaman or private detective was charged with any crime.

Martian · 04-22-2006, 04:53 PM

I'm seeing all this talk about the '30s, 1914, etc etc. But really, the world is not the same place now as it was then. Gun laws or no, a massacre like the one outlined above could not happen today; we live in a world of free and rapid information exchange and knowledge, as they say, is power.

Now, down to the meat of it. Bearing in mind that I am a Canadian and therefore have slightly differing views on gun laws and usage, I would envision it thusly:

Any individual who wishes to do so and does not fall under the list of exceptions may, after appropriate testing and training, own a semi-automatic handgun of any make or calibre. Upon completion of testing and training this individual shall be issued a license to own a gun that must be renewed every six years. This individual may carry said weapon anywhere that is not specifically prohbited. Places prohibited would include but are not limited to schools and hospitals. Other locations where it would be deemed that a gun may be an unreasonable hazard may also apply for limitation.

An individual may own a long gun or shotgun for hunting or sporting purposes, after appropriate testing and training that is seperate and distinct from that submitted on issue of a handgun. Said individual must also register and carry a license as a hunter, to be renewed every six years. Poaching or hunting without a license shall be a felony with a mandatory prison term of not less than three years and not more than five years.

No private citizen may own an automatic weapon for any purpose, under any circumstances. An inidividual found in possession of an automatic weapon of any size, make, or calibre, shall face a felony offense with a mandatory prison term of not less than ten years and not more than fifteen years.

Individuals who are barred from owning firearms include those who have been conviced of a violent crime for which a pardon has not been granted, those deemed mentally or physically incapable of safely owning and operating a firearm and any individual who fails the testing. Should an individual fail testing, a test may be re-issued at no less than two years from the date of the failure.

Every weapon shall be registered in a national database and will include papers certifying ownership. Registration will take place upon manufacture of the weapon and will include all pertinent information about the weapon, including appearance, calibre and a spent shell casing for ballistic testing purposes. The weapon will be subsequently tracked through it's service life and any individual wishing to purchase the weapon must register the change of ownership at the time of the sale. Owning an unregistered firearm of any size, make or calibre is a felony offense carrying a penalty of a fine of no less than $1000 and an optional prison term of no more than two years. Any individual wishing to make changes to the weapon must register these changes at the time of modification. Exceptions to this include modifications to the sighting mechanism, grip and changes of a cosmetic nature.

I don't know if that really encapsulates how I'm feeling all that well, so I'll put in the spirit of it. Hell, maybe someone can make it look more legal, should they be so inclined.

Basically, I understand the right to self-defense and would not infringe on that, nor would I infringe on those who use their guns for sport or hunting. However, I've always been a bit worried about escalation. You carry handguns, the crooks get handguns. You get shotguns, the crooks get rifles or automatic weapons. You get automatic weapons, the crooks get explosives. It's a cycle and I think it's best avoided. That's why the ban on automatic weapons.

Registration and licensing is inspired by automobiles. Both have the same destructive capacity, I reckon both should be licensed in a similar fashion.

And yeah, it may seem a bit constrictive to those of you who follow the constitution. But as quoted above, the constitution states that any individual, under any circumstances, has the right to keep and bear arms. given that nearly every post here outlines exceptions, I don't think many of you truly believe that's the right way to go about it; there are individuals who, should they have access to a firearm, will become a danger to themselves and/or those around them. I would not want those people to have weapons of any nature and certainly not one as dangerous as a gun.

And I do believe that anyone who's committed a violent crime of any nature should be barred from owning a weapon. They've proven they have the capacity, regardless of if the gun was used or not.

dksuddeth · 04-22-2006, 06:42 PM

disregard prior post

The_Dunedan · 04-22-2006, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Gun laws or no, a massacre like the one outlined above could not happen today;

One did...at Mount Carmel Church, just outside Waco, Texas;in full view of the world, courtesy of CNN. Dig into it a little, Martian, you'll want to retch. The documentaries "Waco-A New Revelation", "The FLIR Project" and "Waco-The Rules Of Engagement" are good places to start.

nezmot · 04-23-2006, 02:20 AM

dksuddeth, the_dunedan - once again I fail to understand the logic of using a story like this to support your pro-gun stance. If the strikers mentioned hadn't been armed, and dangerous, the government boys wouldn't have had to open fire on them. It's yet another example of the right to bear arms ending in tragedy not to mention proving yet again that government oppression isn't stopped by arming the populace, it just makes it more brutal.

dksuddeth · 04-23-2006, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nezmot

dksuddeth, the_dunedan - once again I fail to understand the logic of using a story like this to support your pro-gun stance. If the strikers mentioned hadn't been armed, and dangerous, the government boys wouldn't have had to open fire on them. It's yet another example of the right to bear arms ending in tragedy not to mention proving yet again that government oppression isn't stopped by arming the populace, it just makes it more brutal.

nezmot, if the strikers had been unarmed, what would have happened? the private detectives originally hired would have enforced whatever they wanted to because THEY had guns. It wouldn't have mattered at that point about rights, freedom, or anything else. A free people, exercising their right to protest were going to be oppressed. what is it about freedom and rights that you refuse to understand? Is government oppression better with unarmed citizens because nobody dies?

freedom isn't free and unless you're willing to use arms to defend YOUR freedom, it's very easily taken away. You might be happy living an oppressed life doing what you're told to do whether you like it or not but that doesn't make it right. You place the blame for the massacre on the strikers but why do you hold the others blameless? Is it because they are 'the government'? Is the government our supreme ruler and we are merely its subjects? If thats what you believe, maybe you are in the wrong country.

The_Dunedan · 04-23-2006, 02:53 PM

Wait, WHAT?! You're telling me that the Scabs and soldiers WOULDN'T have fired on the strikers unless the strikers were armed? Have you ever heard of the Bonus March, and what happened to them? 30,000 WWI vets and their families, routed out of Washington DC with tanks, machinegun fire, teargas, elements of the U.S. Cavalry, and nearly a regiment of Infantry. The nukber of deaths is unknown, but estimates start at 500 and keep on climbing.

The US Gov't and their Mercantile Corporatist allies have their own sordid history of massacres and murders; don't ever forget it.

nezmot · 04-26-2006, 10:37 AM

All I said was this:

Quote:

It's yet another example of the right to bear arms ending in tragedy not to mention proving yet again that government oppression isn't stopped by arming the populace, it just makes it more brutal.

There's nothing I refuse to understand - those people were going to be oppressed whatever the law - What rights they had was immaterial, the government, who gives you all these rights in the first place, saw fit to take them away when it suited them - and arms failed to help the people under attack. That's all I was saying.

You can argue your highly charged moralistic points about inalienable rights and freedoms - but as has been shown here, it makes no difference, when it actually gets down to it. If the government wants to oppress you, they will. And they do. Whether you wave a gun at them or not. As shown here.

I'm not commenting on the rights or wrongs of this case, or to pin the blame on anyone - I was just pointing out that the argument that having an armed populace in order to counter government oppression, in practice anyway, is flawed.

I admire your idealism, I just tend to view these things more practically I guess. Do you now understand my point?

dksuddeth · 04-26-2006, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nezmot

There's nothing I refuse to understand - those people were going to be oppressed whatever the law - What rights they had was immaterial, the government, who gives you all these rights in the first place, saw fit to take them away when it suited them - and arms failed to help the people under attack. That's all I was saying.

This is whats wrong with America today. This belief that you have your rights given to you from the government. Was this taught to you by the education system, your parents, or something else?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nezmot

You can argue your highly charged moralistic points about inalienable rights and freedoms - but as has been shown here, it makes no difference, when it actually gets down to it. If the government wants to oppress you, they will. And they do. Whether you wave a gun at them or not. As shown here.

So we should lay down our arms and become willing subjects now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nezmot

I'm not commenting on the rights or wrongs of this case, or to pin the blame on anyone - I was just pointing out that the argument that having an armed populace in order to counter government oppression, in practice anyway, is flawed.

do we leave it broken then? or just let it continue as always?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nezmot

I admire your idealism, I just tend to view these things more practically I guess. Do you now understand my point?

Thanks, but frankly, no I don't understand it. I'll never understand surrendering or submitting to the government, or anyone else for that matter.

BigBen · 04-26-2006, 11:49 AM

Haven't read the debate here, but this is Ben's Gun Law:

Every citizen must own a firearm. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you. This firearm must be kept in mechanically sound and working order. Failure to do so will result in severe penalties and possible imprisonment.

This firearm must be loaded when safe to do so. Safety rules can be found at the National Firearms Centre kiosk, located at your Town Office or City Hall.

You are not allowed out in public without a firearm. A National Firearms Officer may ask to see your concealed weapon, if there is doubt that you are in fact carrying a firearm. Only licensed individuals are allowed to carry a concealed weapon. All others must show their firearm in plain sight.

/End Gun Law

You see folks, firearms are tools. Like making clothing and identification a pre-requisite to being allowed out in public, having a firearm does absolutely nothing to improve or hamper the safety of a society. Similarly, requiring ownership as a requisite for citizenship also produces nothing in the way of violence or aggression.

Has anyone else written a law similar to mine? What do you guys think?

/Ben runs off to read thread, now that his law is written.

BigBen · 04-26-2006, 12:07 PM

Okay. Read the thread.

What have you guys got against convicted criminals and the insane? I would have EVERYBODY carry a firearm, and there would be NO REASON to prohibit that.

Now, if a convicted criminal wants to make an aggresive move, or a loon wants to start waving shit around, then the properly armed law-obiding citizens would be able to defend themselves in-kind.

Why an increased punishment for crimes committed with firearms? Could I not also state that you get double the sentence for committing a crime while wearing footwear? A crime is a crime. I don't give a fuck if you used a gun or not. You broke the law. The tool you used makes no difference. You broke the law.

longbough · 06-24-2006, 01:42 PM

Here are the basic gun laws I recognize:

1.) Always treat a firearm as if it's loaded.

2.) Keep your finger off the trigger unless you're going to shoot.

3.) Don't point your weapon at anything you don't intend to shoot.

4.) Know your backstop i.e. what's behind your target.

Psycho Dad · 06-24-2006, 04:54 PM

Damn there are a lot of old threads making their way to the top of the forum lately. They're all good ones though and this is no exception.

I'm not a gun owner but I have no problem with anyone who exhibits the good sense to own and use one having as many as they damn well please. The old saying "Guns don't kill people, blah blah blah" is for the most part I think accurate. Most of the problems come from not enforcing the laws we have now (which don't have to specifically be gun laws) as well as we should. Shoot, stab, beat or poison someone and kill them to me is all the same.

Lebell's ideas as far as gun laws are close to what mine would be. But few of them would ever stand a chance at becoming laws because there is little chance that those who are the extremes of the gun law debate will ever listen to those who would suggest a little compromise.

Slims · 06-24-2006, 11:16 PM

What laws?

I can't think of a single firearm law that I can agree with.

Let me mention a few common ones and I will explain my issues:

1: no firearms for felons. Perfectly reasonable, except that if they can't be trusted with a firearm then they are still a danger and thus should remain in jail. Making it against the law for them to own the firearm they break the law with doesn't make much sense.

2: taking a persons firearms away before they have been convicted of a crime. If the person is that dangerous they should be in jail pending trial.

3: Banning standard (liberals, read 'high') capacity magazines. If someone is planning to go on a rampage, they can buy the illegal standard capacity magazines, or just bring extras...reloading is easy. However, when a law abiding citizen is surprised and must react he has to use what he has at hand and it would really suck to run out of ammunition.

4: Assault weapons bans. These are used in a statistically insignificant number of crimes each year. But they are used frequently for home defense applications (I have one next to the bed).

5: banning saturday night specials or inexpensive firearms. Only the rich deserve to excercise their right of responsible firearms ownership.

6: Banning concealed carry. If someone wants to use a firearm for an offensive purpose, they need only carry the weapon for a short period of time. I.e. from their house, to the victim, and back. The risk of getting caught carrying illegally is minimal. However, if someone desires to protect themselves they have to carry all the time because they lack the luxury of choosing when an attack will occur. Thus preventing legal concealed carry puts an increased burden on those who fear being attacked, but don't really effect the attacker in a meaningful way.

7: No silencers. If I have to fire my rifle indoors in order to defend my wife and I, I would prefer not to go deaf. Also, due to shooting my whole life I am already having hearing trouble. A silenced weapon allows you to shoot without bothering the neighbors. They are not quiet, just not as noisy as they otherwise would be.

8: No machine guns. Other countries have tremendous ownership rates of automatic weapons, and they don't have any problems with them. We still have many floating around in this country and they simply don't show up at crime scenes.

9: Let's register them. Except that allows a future, corrupted government to collect them at will...see Germany, Australia, etc.

10: One gun a month, or similar: I can only shoot one of them at a time, what the fuck do you care how many I own?

12: Background checks. They seem like a good idea, but they don't really do much as anyone can buy their firearms in person to person sales and get around them while paying less for their firearms. If anything they create a market for illegal guns sold off-the-books.

13: Total ban. We should do this because the places that have these (D.C., Chicago) are model success stories and their murder and crime rates have plummeted to nearly zero in recent years.

14: mandatory training. It sounds neat, but it can be used as a tool to prevent people from purchasing firearms. Over time what started out as a reasonable program can end up with an unreasonable number of classes, ridiculous standards, and a long waiting period when anti-gun burocrats use it deliberately as an obstruction.

I don't think I will ever understand how people are so willing to surrender their ability to defend themselves and ensure their safety. If you are unarmed you are, at best, on equal footing with an unarmed assailant. But if you are armed you will always be on at least equal footing.

If you don't want to accept the burden of protecting yourself then fine, curl into a ball and hope nobody notices you, but don't legislate away my ability to protect myself.

CMH · 07-19-2006, 07:46 PM

Ok here are my gun laws:

Willravel · 07-19-2006, 07:53 PM

Willravel says: "Don't shoot someone unless you can prove that they were an immediate mortal danger to you or someone around you, and that using your gun was the only option."

Aside from that, figure it out for yourself.

Deltona Couple · 08-17-2006, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MooseMan3000

-All guns must be sold through a licensed dealer. Dealers will be mandated to perform private transactions at a minimal fee. Selling a firearm privately without a dealership license is a felony.

My disagreement with this statement is this: Are you saying that once I purchase my own firearm, and say choose to get a different one, or merely decide I don't want it, that it would be a felony if I chose to sell it?

If I had to sell it to a dealer, who would set the resale price? Because If I HAD to sell to a dealer, they would have me over a barrel (funny pun, but not intended) on what the price would be.

hrdwareguy · 08-17-2006, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple

My disagreement with this statement is this: Are you saying that once I purchase my own firearm, and say choose to get a different one, or merely decide I don't want it, that it would be a felony if I chose to sell it?

If I had to sell it to a dealer, who would set the resale price? Because If I HAD to sell to a dealer, they would have me over a barrel (funny pun, but not intended) on what the price would be.

You would not have to sell your gun to a dealer.

Lets say you decided to sell your gun and I decided to buy it. Lets also assume that neither of us are gun dealers. We would have to go down to the local gun shop where the licensed dealer would fill out paperwork on me, do a NICS check on me, and if that came back OK, I would give you money, you would give me the gun and one of us would pay a small fee to the dealer.

The idea here is that many states don't do this check so a private individual can sell a gun to anyone without a background check. With no background check, any criminal that wanted a gun could buy one from any law abiding citizen looking to sell a gun.

05-10-2005, 01:05 PM	#1 (permalink)
hrdwareguy "Officer, I was in fear for my life" Location: Oklahoma City	Write Your Own Gun Laws OK, so after debates in other threads about good legislation, bad legislation, practical, impractical and everything else in the mix, I figured I'd start this thread. Please take some time to think about your response before posting. This is your opportunity to create from scratch your own gun laws. Backgroun Let us assume that the federal government were to take control of regulating all firearms again instead of making it a states issue. You have been selected to write the legislation for gun control, sales, ammo, who can and can't own them, the whole nine yards. What would you do? Keep in mind we would be working in current context so you will have to take into account all the guns currently in circulation and deal with how to handle them. Rules There are very few rules. The most important rule is NO BASHING SOMEONE ELSE'S LAWS If you like a law and want to use it as well, fine. If you don't like a law and would like to point out how it may not work, fine. Telling someone their laws are stupid will not be tolerated. Lets see what we can all come up with. __________________ Gun Control is hitting what you aim at Aim for the TFP, Donate Today

05-10-2005, 02:36 PM	#3 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Good thread! Ok, If I were the king of the forest.... -The Second Amendment would be rewritten to clearly state that it is the individual's right to own firearms. -Firearm registration would be a reality...yes, you heard right. Because there would be NO, ABSOLUTELY NO danger of having them confiscated by a zealous government gone anti-gun. -Class 3 weapons would be manufactured and available, but the current criminal background check would be enforced just like now. -Gun laws would be vigorously enforced. You commit a gun crime, you go to jail...for a very very long time. -National Concealed Carry Cards. You would have to take a class and pass a proficiency test as well as a background check, but you could carry nationally. Post Office, school, court, no problem. I might even be open to periodically requalifying for your Card. -No penalty for non-violent felonies. The way things are now is BS in my opinion. If you didn't hurt someone or could have hurt someone when you committed your crime, once your debt is paid, it's PAID. -No more crap laws like the AWB, ballistics databases, or other laws that are feelgood BS. BUT! Better policing of gun dealers too. If one dealer seems to be a major supplier for straw purchasers, then that should be DEALT WITH. -Add gun safety to the curriculum at the grade school level and let rifle clubs flourish at the highschool level. Anyhoo, those are my off-the-cuff thoughts. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate! Last edited by Lebell; 05-10-2005 at 06:36 PM..

05-10-2005, 06:15 PM	#7 (permalink)
CandleInTheDark Addict Location: Where the music's loudest	All owners will be required to being properly (and strictly) trained and tested, before being issued a licence. Such a licence would be good for any small arm. Violations and crime involving guns would be strictly enforced and severely punished. __________________ Where there is doubt there is freedom.

05-11-2005, 01:32 PM	#9 (permalink)
hrdwareguy "Officer, I was in fear for my life" Location: Oklahoma City	Some good responses so far, thanks for the thoughtful input. Since I didn't have time to add my own when I created the thread, I'll do so now. Ownership 1) Every legal US Citizen over the age of 18 can (and should) own firearms with the following exceptions : A) People diagnosed with any mental disorder, B) People who have been convicted on any crime where a firearm was present (used in commission of crime or not), would have ownership privilages revoked, C) Any person who has had a VPO file against them shall have ownership revoked if the courts believe leaving firearms in the persons posession is a threat to the person who filed the VPO. This revokation shall last for the term of the VPO or as long as the people live within 300 miles of each other. 2) There shall exist a national training/safety course that everyone wishing to own a firearm must take. Once the class is completed, they will be issued a gun permit allwoing them to purchase firearms. This license would have to be renewed every 10 years. 3) There would exist a national Concealed Carry Permit. This permit would consist of additional training aside from the standard training/safety permit. This permit would have to be renewed every 5 years. Failure to comply with the ownership laws or providing an excluded person with a firearm will result in loss of license and forfeiture of firearms with no compensation. If the excluded person commits a crime with a firearm provided by someone else, that person will face the same charges as the person who committed the crime. Purchasing/Sales 1) When purchasing a firearm, the purchaser must present their training/safty card. It is the responsibility of the seller to conduct a NICS check to make sure the person is still eligable to purchase firearms. 2) If an individual sells a firearm, it is the responsibility of the seller to maintain a record of who they sold the firearm to, when they sold it, a description of the firearm (including serial number) and the license number of the person they sold it to. - OR - The seller can have a dealer conduct the transaction for them, in which case the dealer shall be responsible for maintaining the appropriate records and the seller shall be issued a receipt from the dealer. Failure to follow the Purchasing/Selling Laws will result in loss of license (dealer or individual) and forfiture of firearms with no compensation (Non sole proprieter dealers shall have 5 business days to transfer firearms to another store that has a license). [b]Types of Firearms[\b] No restrictions on the types of firearms to be sold would exist Manufacturers Manufacturers would be required to submit a balistics test and a spent shell casing to a federally maintained database for every handgun, rifle and/or barrel manufacturerd. Failure of a manufacturer to submit balistics and spent shell casings would result in revokation of manufacturers license. That's about it for now. Law enforcement officials would not be immune from the above laws. They would of course get the training/safety course and the concealed permit course along with any other departmental training. this still leaves the problem of existing firearms already on the market. You could have a registration period, but I don't think that would go over well. And then again, you still have the black market. I suppose existing firearms could end up in the system as they are sold, as long as they aren't sold to an individual. I think this puts more responsibility in the hands of gun owners. If you sell it, you better know who you are selling it to and get some information from them in case they commit a crime with a gun that was registered to you. And like Lebell said, Gun Safety for all...even classes for the parents. __________________ Gun Control is hitting what you aim at Aim for the TFP, Donate Today

05-11-2005, 02:58 PM	#10 (permalink)
Acetylene Addict Location: under a rock	No gun control at all. The world revolved before 1930 and it did so with less gun violence. Punish those who commit crimes and don't let potential murders back into society and end the stupid war on drugs that is the source of so much violence and also incubates the culture of violence in certain groups. Oops... this is Kel posting on Acetylenes computer. __________________ There's no justice. There's just us.

05-10-2005, 01:34 PM	#2 (permalink)
cuervo Tilted Location: NC	There would be no laws regarding ownership and there would no longer be dealers. Convicted crimminals would have their rights reinstated after they had served their time. Crime with a gun would be treated like a crime with any other weapon. Parents and the children would be responsible for the children's actions. Basically, a return to pre-1934.

05-10-2005, 04:04 PM	#4 (permalink)
MooseMan3000 wouldn't mind being a ninja. Location: Maine, the Other White State.	Hm... this is hard. There are lots of different factors to consider, and I'm sure I'm going to forget something. I'm going to think about this for a bit, see what I can come up with. I agree, good thread.

05-10-2005, 05:04 PM	#5 (permalink)
soundmotor Crazy Location: Near & There	Vermont would set the example for the rest of the nation, to paraphrase, you cannot have/use/carry a gun for an unlawful purpose. Beyond that, there is not much else to say. soundmotor

05-10-2005, 08:09 PM	#8 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	This is to replace everyday gun laws. The NFA regulations for purhcases of Class III firearms will remain in effect, but all firearms that had previously been entirely banned may be imported, manufactured, and sold legally. Section I: Ownership and posession 1: No person shall be denied the right to purchase and own a firearm, and to have it in his or her posession in any public place unless otherwise prohibited from owning firearms under subsection 2 of this law. Individuals may purchase handguns only with proof that they have satisfactorily completed a NRA-approved firearm safety test for handgun owners. No person under the age of 18 may posess a handgun unlesss in the presence of a person who is legally permitted to own this handgun, and may not carry a handgun on his or her person outside of property on which he or she legally resides. 2: The right of any person who legally resides in the United States to own a firearm may only be revoked by due process of law and in the following situations: a: The person has been indicted or convicted for a misdemeanor or felonious violent crime and in the following circumstances: i: The judge or grand jury presiding over a case has reason to believe that a suspect who has posted bail is highly likely to use his or her firearm in a criminal manner before the conclusion of the trial. ii: A court rules that a person is not mentally capable of legally and safely owning and operating a firearm. iii: A judge or jury believes that a person's posession of a firearm poses a clear and present danger to other persons and that this danger cannot be removed except by the revocation of the individual's right to own firearms. iv: A convicted criminal is prohibited from legally owning firearms under any section of this law Section II: Crimes committed with firearms 1: Misdemeanors and Felonies committed with firearms a: Any person who is convicted of a violent or coercive misdemeanor while in posession of a firearm, regardless of whether the firearm was used in the comission of the crime, will recieve an additional sentence of 7 (seven) years in addition to any other sentences related to this crime. This additional sentence may not in any circumstance be suspended or reduced, and during the first 7 (seven) years of imprisonment the criminal may not be released or paroled. i: Upon release, the person who was convicted under Section II:1:a of this legislation may not legally posess any firearm for an additional 5 (five) years. b: Any person who is convicted of a violent or coercive felony while in posession of a firearm, regardless of whether the firearm was used in the comission of the crime, will recieve an additional sentence of 14 (fourteen) years in addition to any other sentences related to this crime. This additional sentence may not in any circumstance be suspended or reduced, and during the first 14 (fourteen) years of imprisonment the criminal may not be released or paroled. i: Upon release, the person who was convicted under Section II:1:b of this legislation may not legally posess any firearm for an additional 10 (ten) years. c: No sentence may be extended beyond normal sentencing guidelenes because of the convict's posession of a firearm unless otherwise specified in this law. 2: Other crimes committed with firearms a: Any person who is found to be storing or carrying a firearm in a way that presents a clear and present danger to the well-being of others may be issued a fine, not to exceed $1000 for the first offense, and be subject to no more than one inspection by law enforcement personnel at a mutually convenient time to ensure that the person corrects the unsafe situation. b: Any person who, through gross negligence or malicious intent provides a firearm to a person who may not legally posess it, and the firearm is safely recovered, may be fined not more than $1000 for the first offense. i: Any person who commits a second offense as defined under Section II:2:a-b may be subject to revocation of the right to own firearms for no more than 30 (thirty) days. During this time, the person's firearms and ammunition may be transferred to an appropriate temporary holder, or in the absence of a temporary holder, stored at the nearest police station for a reasonalbe storage fee. c: Any private owner or dealer who, through gross negligence or malicious intent provides a firearm to a person who subsequently uses that firearm in the comission of a violent or coercive crime may be tried and sentenced as if he or she had committed that crime. No person who has taken reasonable precaution to prevent criminal use of his or her firearms, nor any person who would have no reasonable cause to expect the illegal use of his or her firearm, may be prosecuted for any crime committed with that firearm. No sentence issued under this section may exceed life imprisonment without possibility of parole. I'm half asleep. I hope my attempts at lawyer-speak are coherent and comprehensible.

05-13-2005, 01:42 AM	#12 (permalink)
Daniel_ Evil Priest: The Devil Made Me Do It! Location: Southern England	As a brit, I find guns quite alarming. I'd say ban all guns execpt in the hands of highly trained members of accountable organisations. Currently they are the Police, the Military and certain branches of the Secret Service in the UK, and I think that's about right. I know that the founding fathers idea in the States was to ensure that the citizens could raise a militia, and if you still want that option, I'd suggest that you can only have a gun on those terms if you have been trained, and tested, and have secure facilities to look after it. You should have to go through psych evaluations, and competence testing. The range of weapons allowed should be restricted to ones that wound rather than blow holes in houses - if you look at current battlefield trends they are to have small caliabre weapons - a wounded soldier needs looking after, a dead one can be walked away from. The problem is that you can't put the genie back in the bottle. The only way to neutralise all the guns in the hands of nutters already is to make them useless, and the only way to do that (seeing as they are not going to had the guns over) is to make ammo hard to get. So - make ammunition ridiculously expensive, and make it scarce. BUT make sure that the legitimate militia that you want to have, have their own access to ammo at the militia's own armoury. It's interesting to me that in a country where a citizens militia helped establish a form of democracy (like the US) people like it. In a country where a private army allowed a dedicated band of fanatics to usurp the state (i.e. the SD/SA in 1930s Germany) the idea seems less atractive. The simple fact is that whatever the arguments in favour of private gun ownership, in the US more people die from gunshots than they do in the UK. Less guns = less gun deaths and crimes. It's a simple equation.

05-13-2005, 09:57 PM	#15 (permalink)
Stick Psycho Location: Sydney, Australia	Here in Oz there were no gun laws until 1915. The murder rate before 1915 was .3 deaths per 100,000 more than it is today. I vote for no gun laws at all, but if you're convicted of a violent crime you should be hung. Immediately after the trial. No ifs or buts or insanity defence. __________________ ominous adj. Menacing; threatening. Of or being an omen, especially an evil one.

05-17-2005, 11:41 AM	#18 (permalink)
paulskinback Insane	The law would be that everyone is entitled to own a firearm and carry it on their person - and be allowed to use it for protection. No restrictions except for the usual past criminal convictions or mental instability. This way, criminals who feel they need to use scare tactics in the form of a gun would be too scared to pull one out. Because pretty much everyone would be carrying a loaded weapon and be prepared to defend themselves. It worked in the wild west. YEE-HAA! (sorry - had to add that) __________________ 'Everything that can be invented has been invented.- - 1899, Charles Duell, U.S. Office of Patents. 'There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.' - Ken Olson, 1977, Digital Equipment Corporation

05-20-2005, 07:12 PM	#19 (permalink)
moosenose Banned	All gun laws, including the NFA '34, repealed. No permit required for CCW Nobody convicted of a felony, dishonorably discharged from the military, or adjudicated mentally defective may possess a gun. Crimes involving guns are punished exactly as harshly as crimes involving other weapons are punished. The operative thing would be the crime itself, not the choice of weaponry.

04-19-2006, 03:49 PM	#21 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	I'd repeal every gun law ever made except for the two small community laws (one in utah and the other in kennesaw, georgia). Mandatory gun ownership should definitely be a locality issue. (look up kennesaw, GA sometime. crime rate plummeted after that law) No CCW. Carry a gun, carry it open. No permit to carry. No gun ownership prohibition, even felons. If you can't be trusted with a weapon, you don't deserve to be free. unlawful use of a class 3 weapon will result in a capital crime. anyone assisting the unlawful use of a class 3 weapon will be charged with a capital crime. Disband the BATFE. remove special funding for police associated military gear. If there is a crime issue with too much firepower for the police to handle, the local militia (thats 'the people') will be summoned and deal with the issue. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

04-19-2006, 08:26 PM	#22 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	The Security of a Free State best being defended by the armed nature of its' people in both individual and collective Militia capacities, the absolute Right of the People to keep and bear arms and ordinance, of any type whatever, shall on no account be infringed. 'Nuff said.

04-22-2006, 04:53 PM	#24 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	I'm seeing all this talk about the '30s, 1914, etc etc. But really, the world is not the same place now as it was then. Gun laws or no, a massacre like the one outlined above could not happen today; we live in a world of free and rapid information exchange and knowledge, as they say, is power. Now, down to the meat of it. Bearing in mind that I am a Canadian and therefore have slightly differing views on gun laws and usage, I would envision it thusly: Any individual who wishes to do so and does not fall under the list of exceptions may, after appropriate testing and training, own a semi-automatic handgun of any make or calibre. Upon completion of testing and training this individual shall be issued a license to own a gun that must be renewed every six years. This individual may carry said weapon anywhere that is not specifically prohbited. Places prohibited would include but are not limited to schools and hospitals. Other locations where it would be deemed that a gun may be an unreasonable hazard may also apply for limitation. An individual may own a long gun or shotgun for hunting or sporting purposes, after appropriate testing and training that is seperate and distinct from that submitted on issue of a handgun. Said individual must also register and carry a license as a hunter, to be renewed every six years. Poaching or hunting without a license shall be a felony with a mandatory prison term of not less than three years and not more than five years. No private citizen may own an automatic weapon for any purpose, under any circumstances. An inidividual found in possession of an automatic weapon of any size, make, or calibre, shall face a felony offense with a mandatory prison term of not less than ten years and not more than fifteen years. Individuals who are barred from owning firearms include those who have been conviced of a violent crime for which a pardon has not been granted, those deemed mentally or physically incapable of safely owning and operating a firearm and any individual who fails the testing. Should an individual fail testing, a test may be re-issued at no less than two years from the date of the failure. Every weapon shall be registered in a national database and will include papers certifying ownership. Registration will take place upon manufacture of the weapon and will include all pertinent information about the weapon, including appearance, calibre and a spent shell casing for ballistic testing purposes. The weapon will be subsequently tracked through it's service life and any individual wishing to purchase the weapon must register the change of ownership at the time of the sale. Owning an unregistered firearm of any size, make or calibre is a felony offense carrying a penalty of a fine of no less than $1000 and an optional prison term of no more than two years. Any individual wishing to make changes to the weapon must register these changes at the time of modification. Exceptions to this include modifications to the sighting mechanism, grip and changes of a cosmetic nature. I don't know if that really encapsulates how I'm feeling all that well, so I'll put in the spirit of it. Hell, maybe someone can make it look more legal, should they be so inclined. Basically, I understand the right to self-defense and would not infringe on that, nor would I infringe on those who use their guns for sport or hunting. However, I've always been a bit worried about escalation. You carry handguns, the crooks get handguns. You get shotguns, the crooks get rifles or automatic weapons. You get automatic weapons, the crooks get explosives. It's a cycle and I think it's best avoided. That's why the ban on automatic weapons. Registration and licensing is inspired by automobiles. Both have the same destructive capacity, I reckon both should be licensed in a similar fashion. And yeah, it may seem a bit constrictive to those of you who follow the constitution. But as quoted above, the constitution states that any individual, under any circumstances, has the right to keep and bear arms. given that nearly every post here outlines exceptions, I don't think many of you truly believe that's the right way to go about it; there are individuals who, should they have access to a firearm, will become a danger to themselves and/or those around them. I would not want those people to have weapons of any nature and certainly not one as dangerous as a gun. And I do believe that anyone who's committed a violent crime of any nature should be barred from owning a weapon. They've proven they have the capacity, regardless of if the gun was used or not. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

04-22-2006, 06:42 PM	#25 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	disregard prior post __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." Last edited by dksuddeth; 04-22-2006 at 08:12 PM..

04-23-2006, 02:20 AM	#27 (permalink)
nezmot Registered User	dksuddeth, the_dunedan - once again I fail to understand the logic of using a story like this to support your pro-gun stance. If the strikers mentioned hadn't been armed, and dangerous, the government boys wouldn't have had to open fire on them. It's yet another example of the right to bear arms ending in tragedy not to mention proving yet again that government oppression isn't stopped by arming the populace, it just makes it more brutal. Last edited by nezmot; 04-23-2006 at 02:23 AM..

04-23-2006, 02:53 PM	#29 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Wait, WHAT?! You're telling me that the Scabs and soldiers WOULDN'T have fired on the strikers unless the strikers were armed? Have you ever heard of the Bonus March, and what happened to them? 30,000 WWI vets and their families, routed out of Washington DC with tanks, machinegun fire, teargas, elements of the U.S. Cavalry, and nearly a regiment of Infantry. The nukber of deaths is unknown, but estimates start at 500 and keep on climbing. The US Gov't and their Mercantile Corporatist allies have their own sordid history of massacres and murders; don't ever forget it.

04-26-2006, 11:49 AM	#32 (permalink)
BigBen Comedian Location: Use the search button	Haven't read the debate here, but this is Ben's Gun Law: Every citizen must own a firearm. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you. This firearm must be kept in mechanically sound and working order. Failure to do so will result in severe penalties and possible imprisonment. This firearm must be loaded when safe to do so. Safety rules can be found at the National Firearms Centre kiosk, located at your Town Office or City Hall. You are not allowed out in public without a firearm. A National Firearms Officer may ask to see your concealed weapon, if there is doubt that you are in fact carrying a firearm. Only licensed individuals are allowed to carry a concealed weapon. All others must show their firearm in plain sight. /End Gun Law You see folks, firearms are tools. Like making clothing and identification a pre-requisite to being allowed out in public, having a firearm does absolutely nothing to improve or hamper the safety of a society. Similarly, requiring ownership as a requisite for citizenship also produces nothing in the way of violence or aggression. Has anyone else written a law similar to mine? What do you guys think? /Ben runs off to read thread, now that his law is written. __________________ 3.141592654 Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

04-26-2006, 12:07 PM	#33 (permalink)
BigBen Comedian Location: Use the search button	Okay. Read the thread. What have you guys got against convicted criminals and the insane? I would have EVERYBODY carry a firearm, and there would be NO REASON to prohibit that. Now, if a convicted criminal wants to make an aggresive move, or a loon wants to start waving shit around, then the properly armed law-obiding citizens would be able to defend themselves in-kind. Why an increased punishment for crimes committed with firearms? Could I not also state that you get double the sentence for committing a crime while wearing footwear? A crime is a crime. I don't give a fuck if you used a gun or not. You broke the law. The tool you used makes no difference. You broke the law. __________________ 3.141592654 Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

06-24-2006, 01:42 PM	#34 (permalink)
longbough Soylent Green is people. Location: Northern California	Here are the basic gun laws I recognize: 1.) Always treat a firearm as if it's loaded. 2.) Keep your finger off the trigger unless you're going to shoot. 3.) Don't point your weapon at anything you don't intend to shoot. 4.) Know your backstop i.e. what's behind your target.

06-24-2006, 04:54 PM	#35 (permalink)
Psycho Dad Mulletproof Location: Some nucking fut house.	Damn there are a lot of old threads making their way to the top of the forum lately. They're all good ones though and this is no exception. I'm not a gun owner but I have no problem with anyone who exhibits the good sense to own and use one having as many as they damn well please. The old saying "Guns don't kill people, blah blah blah" is for the most part I think accurate. Most of the problems come from not enforcing the laws we have now (which don't have to specifically be gun laws) as well as we should. Shoot, stab, beat or poison someone and kill them to me is all the same. Lebell's ideas as far as gun laws are close to what mine would be. But few of them would ever stand a chance at becoming laws because there is little chance that those who are the extremes of the gun law debate will ever listen to those who would suggest a little compromise. __________________ Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

06-24-2006, 11:16 PM	#36 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	What laws? I can't think of a single firearm law that I can agree with. Let me mention a few common ones and I will explain my issues: 1: no firearms for felons. Perfectly reasonable, except that if they can't be trusted with a firearm then they are still a danger and thus should remain in jail. Making it against the law for them to own the firearm they break the law with doesn't make much sense. 2: taking a persons firearms away before they have been convicted of a crime. If the person is that dangerous they should be in jail pending trial. 3: Banning standard (liberals, read 'high') capacity magazines. If someone is planning to go on a rampage, they can buy the illegal standard capacity magazines, or just bring extras...reloading is easy. However, when a law abiding citizen is surprised and must react he has to use what he has at hand and it would really suck to run out of ammunition. 4: Assault weapons bans. These are used in a statistically insignificant number of crimes each year. But they are used frequently for home defense applications (I have one next to the bed). 5: banning saturday night specials or inexpensive firearms. Only the rich deserve to excercise their right of responsible firearms ownership. 6: Banning concealed carry. If someone wants to use a firearm for an offensive purpose, they need only carry the weapon for a short period of time. I.e. from their house, to the victim, and back. The risk of getting caught carrying illegally is minimal. However, if someone desires to protect themselves they have to carry all the time because they lack the luxury of choosing when an attack will occur. Thus preventing legal concealed carry puts an increased burden on those who fear being attacked, but don't really effect the attacker in a meaningful way. 7: No silencers. If I have to fire my rifle indoors in order to defend my wife and I, I would prefer not to go deaf. Also, due to shooting my whole life I am already having hearing trouble. A silenced weapon allows you to shoot without bothering the neighbors. They are not quiet, just not as noisy as they otherwise would be. 8: No machine guns. Other countries have tremendous ownership rates of automatic weapons, and they don't have any problems with them. We still have many floating around in this country and they simply don't show up at crime scenes. 9: Let's register them. Except that allows a future, corrupted government to collect them at will...see Germany, Australia, etc. 10: One gun a month, or similar: I can only shoot one of them at a time, what the fuck do you care how many I own? 12: Background checks. They seem like a good idea, but they don't really do much as anyone can buy their firearms in person to person sales and get around them while paying less for their firearms. If anything they create a market for illegal guns sold off-the-books. 13: Total ban. We should do this because the places that have these (D.C., Chicago) are model success stories and their murder and crime rates have plummeted to nearly zero in recent years. 14: mandatory training. It sounds neat, but it can be used as a tool to prevent people from purchasing firearms. Over time what started out as a reasonable program can end up with an unreasonable number of classes, ridiculous standards, and a long waiting period when anti-gun burocrats use it deliberately as an obstruction. I don't think I will ever understand how people are so willing to surrender their ability to defend themselves and ensure their safety. If you are unarmed you are, at best, on equal footing with an unarmed assailant. But if you are armed you will always be on at least equal footing. If you don't want to accept the burden of protecting yourself then fine, curl into a ball and hope nobody notices you, but don't legislate away my ability to protect myself. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 06-24-2006 at 11:18 PM..

07-19-2006, 07:46 PM	#37 (permalink)
CMH Upright	Ok here are my gun laws:

07-19-2006, 07:53 PM	#38 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Willravel says: "Don't shoot someone unless you can prove that they were an immediate mortal danger to you or someone around you, and that using your gun was the only option." Aside from that, figure it out for yourself.