What are the common sense gun laws, what should be changed?

In a number of threads people have asked for "common sense gun laws". In reality I can't think of ANY law abiding person who wouldn't want common sense gun laws. What is less clear is what is common sense. Here we seem to have a very large divide.

Some will view "common sense" as allowing the carrying of concealed weapons by permit holders in far more places than they are currently allowed.

Some will argue for more back ground checks.

Some will argue for banning of some types of weapons.

Some will argue for including or excluding more people from the rolls of who is allowed to carry.

My question is what changes should we make? I'm thinking in terms of changes that would be both practical and legal under the current understanding of the 2nd A but I'm open for a wider discussion. I would encourage people to consider the degree to which any proposal is practical. I think we can all agree that a proposal to take away all guns is unworkable since many people would likely refuse to comply. A law demanding mandatory gun training and ownership for all would be equally unworkable.

If you are for changing for example where a permit holder can carry I would be interested in knowing why. If you are for excluding a type of arm again I would be interested in knowing why. If you are going to say "military guns" then what is the definition of a military gun?

One final thing, I don't want to turn this into a "the other side is stupid" battle. We have plenty of those. I would instead like this to try to actually be an exchange of views.

IMO, common sense is to uphold the 2nd amendment while making any restrictions as local as possible. NYC and, say, a ranch in Texas are so vastly different that restrictions on one make no practical sense in the other.

Common sense gun laws, would be laws that are enforced, and prosecuted.

The thousands upon thousands of federal, state, and local gun laws that exist now, should be enough to make even the most fervent anti gun crusader ecstatic.

Instead, they are either duped by politicians and anti gun organizations into believing that it's the lack of more effective laws that is the problem, or they're part of the scam themselves.

There is no shortage of existing gun law violators available to easily prosecute, that are not being prosecuted now. The vast majority of the acts anti gun groups wail about, are already illegal, often covered by multiple laws, both federal and state. They, in conjunction with anti gun politicians, and their political appointee police administrators, invent a scenario of law enforcement stymied by loopholes, etc., that doesn't exist.

The only national group that has consistently called for, lobbied for, and helped write laws to facilitate, aggressively enforcing existing laws on those who misuse guns, is the NRA.

The question those who are genuinely concerned about gun violence should ask is, why is that?

371

Quote from onscreen : In a number of threads people have asked for "common sense gun laws". In reality I can't think of ANY law abiding person who wouldn't want common sense gun laws. What is less clear is what is common sense. Here we seem to have a very large divide. Some will view "common sense" as allowing the carrying of concealed weapons by permit holders in far more places than they are currently allowed. Some will argue for more back ground checks. Some will argue for banning of some types of weapons. Some will argue for including or excluding more people from the rolls of who is allowed to carry. My question is what changes should we make? I'm thinking in terms of changes that would be both practical and legal under the current understanding of the 2nd A but I'm open for a wider discussion. I would encourage people to consider the degree to which any proposal is practical. I think we can all agree that a proposal to take away all guns is unworkable since many people would likely refuse to comply. A law demanding mandatory gun training and ownership for all would be equally unworkable. If you are for changing for example where a permit holder can carry I would be interested in knowing why. If you are for excluding a type of arm again I would be interested in knowing why. If you are going to say "military guns" then what is the definition of a military gun? One final thing, I don't want to turn this into a "the other side is stupid" battle. We have plenty of those. I would instead like this to try to actually be an exchange of views.

Registration and checks at each transfer of ownership to effectively regulate the secondary market. A person should meet the same standard for ownership whether they purchase a gun from a licensed retailer, or from their neighbors.

I've asked effectively the same question time and time again and get zero response. I am open to better controls - as a gun owner, I don't want crazies shooting up schoolhouses or anyone bringing bad publicity on the millions of honest gun owners - but I am NOT in favor of knee-jerk feel good laws that do nothing to improve the situation, or worse - make laws more difficult to understand what is legal and what is not.

Proposals must be:
- constitutional (primarily 2nd A, SCOTUS cases, etc)
- practical (able to be enforced)
- cut and dry with logical reasoning and supportive data (if available) (there should be little ambiguity in the rules and justification as to why, e.g. a certain feature is banned, what differentiates it from a legal feature, etc)

Quote from skiman : 371 Registration and checks at each transfer of ownership to effectively regulate the secondary market. A person should meet the same standard for ownership whether they purchase a gun from a licensed retailer, or from their neighbors.

I really have no problem with this. Let's say that the legal owner (e.g. registered purchaser) of a weapon gives/sells it to another and they commit a crime - the original owner should face severe penalties, just as if it were a straw purchase (e.g. a purchase with the specific intent of bypassing control laws); this liability should serve as deterrent to transferring ownership without performing BGCs (which an FFL could facilitate).

Quote from Dr. J : I really have no problem with this. Let's say that the legal owner (e.g. registered purchaser) of a weapon gives/sells it to another and they commit a crime - the original owner should face severe penalties, just as if it were a straw purchase (e.g. a purchase with the specific intent of bypassing control laws); this liability should serve as deterrent to transferring ownership without performing BGCs (which an FFL could facilitate).

Agreed. Sellers who don't responsibly ensure that they are transferring the weapon to an eligible owner should face stiff, enforceable penalties.

I would also support storage requirements to prevent casual uptake. I think people would store their guns more responsibly if there were a personal stake in keeping them out of the wrong hands.

Quote from skiman : I would also support storage requirements to prevent casual uptake. I think people would store their guns more responsibly if there were a personal stake in keeping them out of the wrong hands.

A lot of states (I'm unsure exactly how many), already have laws requiring firearms to be stored such that they are inaccessable to minors. That pretty much means they need to be locked away in some form.

Quote from BigBananaMess : NYC and, say, a ranch in Texas are so vastly different that restrictions on one make no practical sense in the other.

Which is why a Federal approach isn't the way to go IMO.

Quote from BigBananaMess : A lot of states (I'm unsure exactly how many), already have laws requiring firearms to be stored such that they are inaccessable to minors. That pretty much means they need to be locked away in some form.

Sure. This is another standard that is difficult to enforce. I'm not ready for inspections, so it would be important that people understand that IF their gun is borrowed/stolen etc. that their storage status will be reviewed for negligence and that they may face consequences if they failed to store them responsibly.

Rather than locking them away, I'd suggest that people should have the option of using high quality trigger locks, even biometric trigger locks to allow fast access for authorized users.

Quote from BigBananaMess : A lot of states (I'm unsure exactly how many), already have laws requiring firearms to be stored such that they are inaccessable to minors. That pretty much means they need to be locked away in some form.

we do here in CT. There are also laws around reporting if a firearm is lost/stolen, and penalties if you neglect to report it.

It's easier to obtain and operate firearms, which are instruments that exist for the sole purpose of maximizing the efficient killing of human beings, than it is to obtain and operate motor vehicles. It seems to me that it ought to be at least as difficult to obtain the necessary credentials to legally operate a machine designed for homicide (a firearm) as it is to legally operate a machine designed for transportation (a vehicle).

Quote from gunnerusa : firearms, which are instruments that exist for the sole purpose of maximizing the efficient killing of human beings,

False, as usual.

A great gun law would be to make it illegal to shoot someone with a gun, unless in self defense.

That's about all there is. Next?