My basic positions on gun rights/control

[petronius]

I see myself as a pro-RKBA DUer, so I thought I'd share what that means to me (I suffer the delusion that anyone cares what I think). So, here are my positions, and I'm happy to elaborate on or discuss any or all of them with anyone who's interested:

• Safety and education should be a major focus. I like the Handgun Safety Certificate (HSC) in CA, as well as the required operation demo before taking posession. I'd also like to see more firearms safety info in public schools.
  
  
• I think every firearm purchase should involve a background check. I can live with CA's ban on private sales, and I see privacy issues with opening NICS to private sellers, but I prefer a middle ground: I'd suggest an optional enhanced HSC that includes a background check. A buyer with an eHSC would be allowed to make private purchases, others would need to go through an FFL, and all sellers would have the option to insist on the latter. FFLs would be allowed to charge a reasonable (small) fee for the service.
  
  
• States should be encouraged - with some federal funding if necessary - to get records into NICS in a timely manner.
  
  
• I oppose limits on magazine capacity: there's no reason to think that capacity would have any impact on the vast majority of firearms crime, nor even on the major events like CO, but as the limit gets small it interferes excessively with legitimate uses. However, I stop caring once the suggested number gets into the high double-digits.
  
  
• I oppose assault weapon bans as pointless and propagandistic policies based on cosmetic features - a rifle is a rifle, whether it's black and plastic with a skeleton stock or classic steel with some nice wood.
  
  
• I support shall-issue CCW, with comprehensive training. Everything I've read about the TX model makes me think it's a good approach.
  
  
• I dislike registration and think it's largely useless, but it's not a dealbreaker for me (and CA's current handgun registration hasn't done any harm yet.)
  
  
• I don't think waiting periods are particularly onerous, but 15 days is unreasonable. Perhaps something like 3 days, and a valid CCW should be enough to waive it.

(And, before anyone asks, I'll be voting for President Obama - and every other Democrat on my ballot - no matter what he does or says about firearms between now and then...)

[GreenStormCloud]

1. I am totally against waiting periods of any kind.

Waiting periods would eleminate gun shows. For all the antis that would be a huge cheer. I like gun shows because the prices are a bit lower than gun shops and the selection is huge. There would be no way that you could come back to the gun show three days later as the show would be closed. You would have to go to the dealers place which could easily be several counties away.

Further, waiting periods accomplish nothing at all.

[ileus]

3. I go to funshows to see every type of firearm

I'm considering at once....then I normally head to one of 3 or 4 shops and buy at a later date.

Shows are so much fun that's for sure I'd hate to see them disappear.

[petronius]

4. Thanks, both of you - those are ramifications I hadn't considered

Where I live and shop, the downside for me is only an extra short drive and an irritation - which I thought was worth the slim chance that a delay might prevent an impetuous crime. Although, I've not seen any data to suggest that a wait had ever prevented anything...

[Remmah2]

17. There is a way to work with waiting periods and gun shows.

It would also vary from state to state.

I collect antique lever action rifles and I also have a pistol permit. Any kind of waiting period is sort of useless since I already own firearms. Therefore if a person had a pistol permit, they would already be background checked and an immediate sale could go through.

I attend a few shows every year. For a person without prior firearm clearance, the firearm could be shipped to a local (other) FFL or some of the FFL's I purchase from are only a short drive away. A backorder could be picked up at their location. The premium is only about $20.

Gun shows could run more often as well. If I don't catch up with a FFL at one location I catch up with him/her at another. To do business the FFL's might increase the number of shows they do.

Gun shows might become smaller but for me in my circumstances I couldn't see them folding.

FWIW, new firearms at gun shows for me are no more of a bargain than working through a gun store. Antiques and antique parts are the main reason I go.

[ileus]

2. Worst thing you mention is a waiting period.

For me the people I deal with are 1 hour, 1.5 hours, 45 minutes, and 1.25 hours away.

[spin]

5. I agree with you on every point! (n/t)

[Hoyt]

6. Appears gun culture doesn't want any substantive changes. No waiting periods because you can't walk

out of a gun show with a bunch of lethal weapons. Poor, pitiful gun culture.

[permatex]

7. Yeah, whatever Hoyt

your just mad because your a prohibited person.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

[4th law of robotics]

13. He's a criminal?

No wonder he hates guns (well, legally owned ones at least).

That actually really brings his arguments in to focus.

[permatex]

15. He likes to claim it's taken out of context

but when I challenged him to put it in context, all I got was


It's there for all to see, he wrote it, he owns it.

[4th law of robotics]

16. If my career revolved around taking people's property from them by force

I think I would also be strongly opposed to private gun ownership.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. and he's still here. nt.

[ellisonz]

38. Another one bites the dust...

[-..__...]

20. GTFO!!!!

All the more reason to require a background check before posting here (or any other forum).

I wonder if he has any remorse, sympathy or ever apologized to his victims/people he terrorized?

[gejohnston]

8. I don't give a shit about waiting periods either way

but I haven't figured out what Florida's waiting period is supposed to accomplish, if anything.

[Hoyt]

9. If nothing else, I think waiting periods prevent people from buying another lethal weapon because

the display, advertising, sales pitch, etc., is piquing one's baser instincts.

I think it is best to throw up as many impediments as possible to those enamored with lethal weapons.

The NRA is helping sell lethal weapons. I don't think our laws have to encourage people to arm up.

[gejohnston]

10. I think the economy and union busting is doing a better job than

any waiting period. I mean, we are talking about discretionary income.

[ileus]

11. What if you want to buy a nice firearm instead of a lethal weapon?

I agree anyone looking for a lethal weapon is going use it that way and should be stopped.

However.com the vast majority of people want simple self defense, hunting, or target firearms.

[4th law of robotics]

14. Ah so now you're saving people from their "baser instincts"

[Remmah2]

18. Don't ever ask me to go shoe shopping with you.

Too damned impulsive.

[soccer1]

12. Waiting periods can discourage impulse buying of a weapon.....

a person is really angry.....wants to buy a gun......waiting period allows for "cool down" time. Just a thought.

[Flyboy_451]

19. There is a reverse side to that as well...

A close friend of mine separated from a hot headed significant other. After receiving threats of physical harm and having her car vandalized by him, she took out a restraining order and sought to purchase a handgun. Unfortunately, the county in which she lived required a three day "cooling off" period. On the second day of that cooling off period, her ex used an eight pound sledge hammer to smash through her apartment door. Luckily, she was staying with my wife and I, one floor below, and was not home to receive his wrath. Had she been there with little protection, it is perfectly likely she would have been beaten to a bloody pulp or worse. Granted, a firearm may not have added to her safety, depending on her willingness to use it, but the waiting period easily could have been a major contributor to her being injured or killed had she been home, rather than seeking refuge in our home.

As soon as we heard the ruckus above, I called 911, explained the situation and informed them that I was an off duty cop living in the same building. They arrived 19 minutes later.

Waiting periods have never been shown to be effective at preventing crime, as far as I know. Firearms have proven to be effective for personal and home protection many thousands of times.

[soccer1]

22. I understand what you're saying....

but, we don't know how many gun injuries or fatalities have been averted due to a "cooling off" waiting period. If a person doesn't buy the gun after a waiting period how would we know the reason for that decision? Also,if a woman is being threatened and feels she is in immediate danger, if she buys a gun and doesn't know how to use it because the circumstances of the threat wouldn't allow her time to go for training, that doesn't sound like an intelligent response to a threat. If the man threatening her is unarmed he could use her own gun to shoot her. These scenarios sound reasonable but I think a positive outcome for a woman in that situation who has no firearms training is not guaranteed....in fact might make the situation worse. We don't know. But, there are other options for a woman who has been threatened....she can stay with friends.....go to a center for domestic violence....stay away from her home until she gets the weapon and gets some training. Just saying.......a waiting period doesn't mean a woman has to allow herself to be a victim of domestic violence. Also, in the state where she lives would she be on legally solid ground if she shot him and he didn't have a gun? I would hope so.

[gejohnston]

23. I see your point but

"bad guys" taking guns away from you is mostly in movies, but no evidence it actually happens that often.

Also, in the state where she lives would she be on legally solid ground if she shot him and he didn't have a gun? I would hope so.

what the other guy has as a weapon is less important than disparity of force and what a "reasonable man" would view it. Big muscular guy throwing punches at old fat guy or small person, a shooting would be could be justified, but I doubt the reverse is true.
In this case, a sludge hammer is a deadly weapon. So are bare hands.

As for waiting periods, they don't apply to private sales, at least not in Florida. All she would have to do is go to a flea market and find a non FFL. The one up the road from me, a retired NYPD cop has some.

[soccer1]

24. So, no problem then, she buys a gun privately.

I don't know all the laws pertaining to each weapons issue in each state, but I still believe waiting periods are sensible. But, if people can buy weapons privately in some states without a waiting period, then I guess there's no control over anyone getting a weapon at any time. Do private sales in FLA or any state require a background check for a handgun? If not, those men with restraining orders can get a gun, at a private sale, and then he and the armed woman he is threatening can shoot it out. Makes no sense to me.


I will add: do you really believe that a man determined to injure a woman will be deterred by the fact she has a gun? I doubt it. He will find a way unless he's incarcerated or decides to stay away from her. I think women buying guns for self protection is fine, but I think it can offer a false sense of security.

[gejohnston]

25. let's see

some states do, Illinois AFAIK, the seller is supposed to document the buyer's FOID number etc. Florida does not.

Yeah, that is a problem. The hard part is finding a way to fix it without violating various privacy laws etc. If a private seller wanted to do a background check, he can't. The FBI or state police would hang up on him or her. The best way of enforcing it that I can think of is find incentives to have private sellers have an FFL broker it, and incentives for the FFL to provide the service. There is a pawn shop with an FFL in my area who actually used that in their advertising (selling your gun to someone you can't check out is dangerous, consign it to us and we can.) Yeah, the abusive guy can. He gets caught with it, its five to ten at Club Fed.

Personally, when I sell a gun, meet me at Ace Hardware. You don't show, I'm guessing you had something to hide.

[soccer1]

26. Do you not feel uncomfortable selling a gun to someone you don't know very well?

[gejohnston]

28. the guy at Ace Hardware

is an FFL who does the background check for forty bucks. Last time I sold a gun was before I went in the Air Force. That was in a small Wyoming town, and I have family who were cops. Things were easy to check out. If one of my brothers knew you "professionally" I would know about it. This was the kind of place where my grandfather (being a devout Christian, who took the Sermon on the Mount seriously) got away with never carrying his service revolver loaded. My grandma was the only person who knew. That doesn't mean he didn't have to use his stick at a bar fight once or twice.

[soccer1]

35. Would you be opposed to a law requiring private sellers to

have background checks done by a FFL broker? What problems might that present, if any?

[gejohnston]

36. not at all

the hard part would be enforcing it.

[soccer1]

37. Yes, like every other law, gun related or not.

[Flyboy_451]

27. I agree that we can't know how many shootings are averted...

By any law. And I also agree that her having a gun would not have guaranteed her safety. I never indicated otherwise. As for training, she had been shooting with my wife and I on several occasions and was proficiently safe and capable enough with a firearm that it certainly could have made a difference.

As for the legality of using lethal force, it would have been justified in any state. A sledge hammer certainly qualifies as lethal force, and therefore justifies a lethal force defense.

At the time of this incident, the state required that a permit to purchase a handgun be obtained from the county sheriff prior to any sale, including individual sales. The sheriff had discretion as to waiting periods but could not deny a permit applicant unless they were not legally eligible to possess a handgun. The state requirement for a permit has since been (rightully, IMO)removed.

There is never a guarantee that possession of a firearm in any violent event will prevent injury to a victim. What it does is allow for the possibility that it will make a difference. Firearms, handguns specifically, are arguably the most effective means of self defense commonly available. Other options, such as leaving, just as she did, are good options but they are no garauntee either. Sooner or later, you have to resume your life. Work, home, regular destinations; these are all primary places that a victim can be attacked by someone that knows their routine. I see no benefit in denying someone the ability to defend themselves effectively in their home, which is exactly what this type of law does.

It also does nothing to prevent someone who already owns guns from using one they have rather than acquiring a new one. Most states do not have a waiting period, and I have yet to see any evidence of a significant number of incidents in which someone runs out to the local gun shop, buys a gun and then goes and shoots someone in a fit of rage. Has it happened? Probably. But if it happened with any frequency, we would be hearing about it.

[soccer1]

29. I understand what you're saying regarding self defense and waiting period.

Guns are used in most suicides and murder/suicides. More people use guns to commit suicide than homicides. I guess you believe a waiting period would not be useful in deterring some of those crimes. Maybe they wouldn't be, I don't know. And it really makes no difference because if people can buy guns privately with no background checks and no waiting periods, what's the point of having background checks and waiting periods for weapons sold at gun shops and gun shows? Very discouraging, really.

[Flyboy_451]

31. I agree about the frustration for sure...

As for the lack of background checks on private sales, I think it is less of a problem than some people make it out to be. I have been involved with firearms since I was a boy, hunting and shooting competitively with my dad. I have been in law enforcement for over 14 years now. My experience with legal firearms owners indicates that the vast majority of them are quite conscientious with regards to selling guns to individuals. Many of them will not sell to any person who does not have either a concealed carry permit or is willing to go through a local shop to do a NICS background check. This is not to say that this is always the case. There are certainly bad apples in every barrel, but I think the numbers are smaller than a lot of people think they are.

Interestingly, avid shooters (such as competition shooters and collectors) are, as a whole, one of the friendliest and most trustworthy groups I have ever had the pleasure of being involved with. In my professional experience, I have yet to have any unpleasant dealings with a concealed carry permit holder, even when I had to take actions that were not to their liking, such as securing their weapon while interviewing them and even arresting them until the legal system ran it's course to clear them of wrongdoing.

As messed up as our world is, people are generally good, regardless of whether or not they are a gun owner, democrat or republican or even a tea party supporter. Most people wouldn't dream of intentionally harming an innocent person, with or without a gun. The exceptions are a very small minority.

[soccer1]

33. I agree..most people are generally good

I guess my basic question is this concerning issues of gun control: If the argument is that the bad guys will always have access to weapons then what is the point of any regulations at all other than age regulations. Waiting periods for handguns? ......they prevent immediate access for self protection and suicides,murder/ suicides will find a way to kill themselves and others with them. Ban military grade weapons, ammo, etc.?.....why bother regulate, because the bad guys will still get them and people want to own them for sport. Background checks.?.....bad guys buy privately or they pass the background check. Want to own a gun, then go for training?....it's too expensive, it's inconvenient and interferes with my 2nd amendment right to own a gun. Regulate concealed carry and open carry so that only those with a proven "need" can get a permit?....who has the right to pass judgement on why I want to carry,open or concealed.

I'm not one to shy away from trying to find remedies for complicated issues, but the gun laws are so complicated and the gulf between the "vision" of pro gun control groups and those who resist controls is so great that I really don't see any way to enact meaningful regulations throughout the 50 states. Can't even go to many national parks without being surrounded by people bearing arms. Nuts, IMO.

No wonder politicians steer clear of this issue. Thanks for listening...I'm done now.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

30. I hear you on this.

BTW, welcome to the group.

I'm on the fence with waiting periods and I'd like to see some discussion.

[X_Digger]

32. Waiting periods are great in theory, not so much in practice..

http://publichealthlawresearch.org/public-health-topics/injury-prevention/gun-safety/evidence-brief/waiting-period-laws-gun-permits

In the judgment of a Community Guide expert panel, there is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of waiting period laws as public health interventions aimed at preventing gun-related violence and suicide.

[soccer1]

34. Okay. Waiting periods are not effective. I accept that.