Never Mind New Guns Laws—the NRA Keeps Weakening the Existing Ones

[SecularMotion]

The leaders of the National Rifle Association keep saying we don’t need any new gun laws and should just to enforce the ones we already have. But here’s the rub: nobody has done more to undermine the enforcement of the laws we already have than the NRA leadership.

In the current gun debate in Washington, the big-ticket item for advocates of stronger gun laws is universal background checks—this is, requiring a background check on every gun sale, including those guns sold by unlicensed, so-called private sellers at gun shows, online, and elsewhere.

The NRA lobbyists are working overtime to block this bill despite poll after poll showing that 9 in 10 Americans—and even 85 percent of NRA members—support the idea.

Seeing that they may not be able to block the bill entirely, NRA lobbyists are pushing a backup plan: make background checks unenforceable.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/01/never-mind-new-guns-laws-the-nra-keeps-weakening-the-existing-ones.html

[CTyankee]

1. I hope some of our 2nd A supporters here will respond to this article with their OWN

good, sensible ideas for gun safety...

not holding my breath, boys...

[hack89]

2. Universal background checks are a no brainer

along with limits on magazine size, fully funding the background check system to ensure the data is complete and up to date, cracking down on illegal gun trafficking, instituting a system for mental healthcare professionals to report potentially violent patients,

I support all propose gun control laws with the exception of an AWB and registration.

Why do you think that all gun owners oppose all gun control? There is a reason that only a small percentage of gun owners are NRA members.

[CTyankee]

4. I draw that conclusion when I see much more defense of guns than I do see

suggestions such as you have made here (and made in response to a direct challenge, such as mine). IOW, I don't see very many self identifying gun defenders proactively offering their solutions in the interest of gun safety laws that they feel will work. I also don't see any of such individuals coming together and forming their own organizations that offer a counterweight to the NRA debates about "sensible gun safety regulation."

Instead, I see a lot of "you're exploiting the tragedy of those children's deaths" hurled at people who are doing no such thing. It's like saying if you demonstrated against the Iraq War you were exploiting the deaths of U.S. service members. And a lot hurled against Mayor Bloomberg for using his own money to run political ads for candidates who support gun safety laws (or oppose those who don't). Bloomberg isn't lining his own pockets in doing so, in contrast to some on the other side who do. And I see pushback in efforts to divide along regional lines that I feel are unfair and often crude.

Those are some reasons "why."

[hack89]

5. Can you understand why not everyone trusts 1% billionaires?

especially one with a spotty record on civil rights - specifically "stop and frisk" and siccing his "private army" on OWS?

Of course Bloomberg is not in it for the money - he wants the political power and influence that you are so willing to hand him.

[CTyankee]

6. Were we talking about "stop and frisk" or what he did to OWS?

I'm fine with having that discussion and I definitely have my ideas, some informed by my son who is a senior prosecutor in New York. But this is a different subject.

Yes, I am fine with him using his money as speech to rectify a situation made way out of balance by the NRA and other gun promoters money. I would not be happy if he used it to line the pockets of his favorite candidate. But to balance the scales in the public debate over the issues, yes, that is fine and it is salutary.

[hack89]

7. No - we are talking about trusting Mike Bloomberg, billionaire one percenter.

we are talking about whether America is better off giving him more power and influence just because he agrees with you about guns. You can ignore his baggage - many Dems cannot.

[CTyankee]

9. Because he's right when it comes to this subject.

I'm not ignoring a damn thing.

How does acquire some magical power by running ads supporting sensible gun regulation? Is he asking people to vote for him to be king? Is it all an evil plot for him to take over the government? Or is he seeking to elect candidates who support the same political cause that he supports?

[hack89]

11. Fortunately his effort helps Senate Dems up for reelection in pro-gun states

gives them a chance to forcefully restate their positions and inoculate themselves from repuke attacks in the general election.

It is not like Bloomberg doesn't have some use. But I certainly don't want him involved in labor issues or civil rights. What are you going to do when he decides not to constrain himself to just gun control?

[CTyankee]

14. He isn't constraining himself now and probably won't in the future.

But I know what I can support and what I cannot and I am willing to defend my positions. I believe that what he is doing on gun safety is needed and is important.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. The radicals are responding to the radicals

There are pols and even posters here who lead with "ban them all" and "all gun owners have blood on their hands". That leads to entrenchment on the other side instantaneously. Then the war is on and reason is out the door.

Bloomberg is serious 1%er. A few worship him and all he does, but I do not see how a liberal could.

[CTyankee]

10. "worship"? What an interesting twist...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. Because if I used more descriptive terms the post would be cancelled

You certainly don't worship him, but some here clearly do.

[premium]

13. One in particular worships the ground he walks on. nt.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Many if us have in the past, here is mine

Things I support

NICS checks or equivalent on all transactions, even private party transaction, inheritance, and gifts. My approach would be a Federal FOID that you would automatically get at 18yo so they are not a "firearms ownership licenses", a common objection to that approach. The check is then if the FOID is still valid for the sale to proceed. This is easy from the IT perspective. Note the NRA rejects the FOID approach.

Limitation of pistol magazines to what fits inside the grip of the gun. Require that new designs not support magazines that extend beneath the handle (BATF already has authority to force design changes). This is readily demonstrated by the Ruger line of .22LR handguns and the Astra 400/600. Grandfather or buy back at retail price non-conforming magazines. This approach also slows down magazine changes. Note that the NRA has rejected magazine limitations

All firearms must be secured when not in use, being cleaned, transported, etc. While California got stupid on parts of this, its the right thing to do. Some will miss their old time glass front display cases or wall rack, but proper security is a must. Would consider an exemption for non-functional devices. I believe the NRA has fought mandatory safes. It adds costs to gun ownership, but this has to be done.

Mandatory reporting of theft or loss. This is a no brainer. A number of pro gun people say they will report theirs missing to avoid registration etc. That should be felony country.

Enforce the existing Federal laws about false paperwork by purchasers. Bloomie and I even agree on this one

Somethings I have mixed feelings about/no definitive solution

Mandatory owner training. It is not required to exercise any other enumerated right, but I have seen some very scary stuff over the years. Not sure what the standards should be, but I come down on the side of some training being required. The NRA has fought this.

Mandatory safety training for children. Enough for them to overcome their natural curiosity and get an adult should they find an unsecured firearm. While some would find that more offensive than the fundies find sex ed, until things change, its basic safety and needs to be done. Not sure the best way, but it is clearly called for. NRA has not taken a stand on this but does offer such classes. I don't see it as a talking point.

Waiting periods. For someone who already has firearms, not sure what purpose they serve. For first time owners I support them. Overall I think they are a good idea. Not sure what the right time length should be. 1 weeks seems good. There are reports that Lanza tried to buy a rifle but was stopped by the mandated waiting period (if the media reports are to be believed). NRA opposes waiting periods

Better mental health reporting and supervision. Seen a number of posts on that here. Clearly something is called for, but how to do it is not clear. Loughner never should have been allowed to have a gun. Also we cannot and should not demonize the mentally ill and the people who serve them as some have done. The NRA has fought additional reporting of some types of problems yet is trying to blame the "crazies". Go figure

[badtoworse]

15. This seems reasonable to me.

I assume that with an FOID, there would be no need to register the firearm in question to the holder of the FOID. All that the government needs to know is that said firearm was sold to an individual not disqualified from owning it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. FOID is unrelated to registration

Those who oppose the FOID approach say it would provide a list of gun owners. That is why I call for them to be like Selective Service used to be and voting registration is today. At worst it becomes a list of possible gun owners, at best its a list of all adults without disqualifications on their record. In some states the CCW is used similarly.