I'm a little late to the party, but I can't resist any longer.
So here's my take on this: . . . .
I'm not out to stop all crime, or gun crime, or even all 'mass shootings'; I'm interested in dropping the death toll of the ones we see to something 'less' terrible. I think that there's a way to do this while still preserving all aspects of the 2A and the RKBA.
There's a way to enact gun control
and preserve
all aspects of the 2A and RKBA? I disagree. That's only possible if you redefine the 2A and RKBA, which isn't preserving them. If you think you have a way, post it and I will tell you why it won't work
Let's be completely honest- people will be able to get guns, regardless of whether they are banned or not, and criminals are still going to shoot innocent people and one another, especially in small-scale crime like Chicago. But those gangsters aren't slaughtering churchfuls of people at a single go.
No. They're slaughtering them 2 and 3 at a time in our inner cities, and they're using handguns to do it. As so often happens, I fail to see the point of making firearms more difficult to get for people who don't misuse them.
I'm a strong supporter of proper background checks for all gun transactions, even though I've bought and sold guns FTF before without background checks and I know that checks are limited and no guarantee of future good behavior, I've since rethought that and think we as a community would benefit from universal background checks and hefty penalties if one is caught without those checks.
I don't see how "we as a community" would benefit from them. In fact, I disagree. I think allowing further encroachments into this constitutional right does us more harm than good. Further, there's a 1968 case out there called
U.S. v. Haynes which tells me that universal background checks can't be enforced against convicted felons in the first place. If we can't prosecute Carl, the Convicted Killer, for failing to use a background check, why on earth should I have to go through one?
. . . .I think that we ought to have a national Firearms Permit, issued at no cost to the citizen, signifying that a person is competent and legally eligible to own firearms, regardless of whether or not they choose to. . . .
Papiere, bitte.
. . . .I think that we ought to preempt silly state laws that focus on features or ban carry of weapons and put more guns in the hands of good people, and I think that we ought to develop a functional and useful way to determine who isn't able to have a gun and ensure that they don't (legally) obtain one.
I think this claim is at odds with the rest of your post.
I think that guns that are confinscated should be done so with reimbursement at fair market value, and that anyone whose guns are taken from them should have a prompt, speedy and fair opportunity for due process.
You do understand that those things are (by and large) already constitutionally required, with or without your support, right?
I'm pretty much of the opinion that guns save lives and ought to be available to every American citizen and legal resident alien. Heck, I'm even open to reinforcing the 2A to clearly and permanently enshrine the RKBA, carry, stand-your-ground, etc in the Constitution.
"Reinforcing" the 2A? That's called amendment or a constitutional convention. Personally, I'm extremely wary of such a thing. I don't want the 2A rewritten. I don't want it opened up for amendment. I don't want any of the other amendments rewritten, either. In today's political climate, I fear for the 1A.
. . . . I think that we ought to make "assault weapons" an NFA class, with a hefty-but-not-impossible extra price tag and all of the regulations that it requires. . . . .
So how would you define an "assault weapon?" Pistol grip? Shoulder thing that goes up? Or would you just lump all semiauto rifles into that? Words and definitions matter in the law. Vague concepts do not apprise a potential defendant of what conduct is or is not prohibited. Laws which do not so apprise potential defendants are unconstitutional under the "void for vagueness" doctrine.
. . . . personally, I think that we ought to draw it at 20 round or above magazines and treat each magazine in excess of 20 rounds as an NFA item itself, regardless of what it's connected to (this would let us keep most service pistols and standard-capacity magazines normal and available for carry). So basically, your 20+ round magazines would all be treated as NFA items and unlicensed possession would be a criminal offense. Alternatively, I'm OK with making everything semi-auto with a capacity over 10 rounds an NFA item, regardless of length, action, features, etc. Will this stop mass shootings? No, but it will slow the rate of fire.
Here's the thing about rights: The Bill of Rights is a remarkably undemocratic document. It protects the individual from mob rule. IOW, if I have a
right to do something, I don't have to give a rat's hiney whether you like it or not. I have a right.
If you want to get rid of every semiauto/detachable magazine/AR or whatever that you have, feel free. I'll suggest that you not try to take mine, though. I keep them, in part, for protection of myself and my family. I suspect that there are millions of gun owners who will not willingly surrender any of their guns. That means that if you want guns confiscated, you'll have to send men with guns to take them. On that note, I'll suggest that you go talk to some of your local police. Ask them how many are willing to go door-to-door confiscating guns. I'll bet it's very few. So who will you send? Antifa with a bunch of Nerf guns and funny hats?
We, the gun owning community, have "compromised" and "compromised" and "compromised," and we've gotten screwed every time. I'm done compromising.
