PDA

View Full Version : "Common sense" CA gun reform


jnojr
03-27-2006, 10:57 AM
Let's hear some thoughts about reforms that stand a chance of passing.

Please note... this doesn't include shall-issue CCWs or a repeal of SB23. Neither is going to happen with our current Legislature.

I mean things like exempting a current handgun owner from the 10 day wait when purchasing a new handgun. Why not? They already have a handgun, and could commit a crime if they wanted. This would be kinda tough for the left to argue against. Same with exempting CCW holders from the waiting period.

How about a modification of the "safety device" law. As things stand, forcing a new gun owner to purchase yet another trigger lock is just silly. Let's let people bring in a lock. Sure, maybe the antis will scream "But they could just buy one lock and use itt o buy gun after gun!" True... but then, there's nothing forcing them to use the eight dozen locks they accumulate now.

Not broad, sweeping sea-change pieces of legislation... small victories that will increase freedom, decrease hysteria, and stand a good chance of NRA support.

Thoughts?

50ae
03-27-2006, 11:15 AM
Common sense in the state assembly, LOL!!!!

rips31
03-27-2006, 11:27 AM
i wouldn't mind the 10-/30-day waiting periods dying a quick death. the safety device requirement being reduced would be nice, too. heck, while we're at it, let's get rid of the 'approved' list and just allow all handguns to be purchased. :)

but yea...never gonna happen.

Tom Riddle
03-27-2006, 11:27 AM
I believe that someday the 10 day waiting period for CCW holders will go away. It only makes sense. Here is a person that has been investigated inside and out and obviously already owns a pistol or revolver. Waiting 10 days for a second (or third or 53rd), gun makes no sense at all.:confused:

As for the gun lock, the last three pistols I bought came with a factory lock. If it's part of the package you cannot complain. Some of the internal locking devices suck, but they aren't ever going away.

Just my thoughts

glen avon
03-27-2006, 11:32 AM
Let's hear some thoughts about reforms that stand a chance of passing.

Please note... this doesn't include shall-issue CCWs or a repeal of SB23. Neither is going to happen with our current Legislature.

I mean things like exempting a current handgun owner from the 10 day wait when purchasing a new handgun. Why not? They already have a handgun, and could commit a crime if they wanted. This would be kinda tough for the left to argue against. Same with exempting CCW holders from the waiting period....Thoughts?

how do you demonstrate that you already have a handgun? registration, that's the problem. the cure is worse than the ill. between the two, I will take the 10-day wait.

Tom Riddle
03-27-2006, 11:39 AM
If you have a CCW in California, all the handguns on the card are ALREADY registered to your name and fingerprints. What's the difference?

ohsmily
03-27-2006, 11:41 AM
how do you demonstrate that you already have a handgun? registration, that's the problem. the cure is worse than the ill. between the two, I will take the 10-day wait.

Handgun ownership registration is already in place. The state retains all the information about your handgun purchases in a database already. They can plug your name into a computer and pull up how many handguns you own and the exact model they are. Long gun purchases are not logged in a database.

However, don't anyone hold your breath about eliminating the 10 day wait. What if you all you own is a dinky .22, and now you are buying a .45ACP pistol? An anti-gunner could EASILY make the argument that just b/c you already own a handgun doesn't mean that you aren't buying this new one to use in a crime instead of the other one. Or they could argue that you are buying a 2nd one to go with the first to create a crime of passion that day with 2 guns while you are angry.

And the trigger lock requirement won't go away either. They can easily appeal to emotion and state that every gun should have a trigger lock to prevent a child from accessing any of your guns. BUY A SAFE and stop whining about the trigger lock requirement. If you have an approved safe, you can fill out a safe ownership affidavit and not be forced to buy a lock (if the gun didn't already come with one).

The people who put these laws into place thought they were good. Those people and their ilk are still in power. Why do you think they will change their minds? Proposing rescinding the laws is ridiculous until different politicians are put into power. BUT, feel free to come up with laws that aren't on the books yet that might help us or otherwise expand some rights...that is always possible (albeit unlikely in the current political climate).

xenophobe
03-27-2006, 11:50 AM
1) Shall issue Assault Weapon Permits to those who want one and pass a background check

Rascal
03-27-2006, 11:51 AM
how do you demonstrate that you already have a handgun? registration, that's the problem. the cure is worse than the ill. between the two, I will take the 10-day wait.

Glen I see your point, but since they already have our names, if we own a handgun, then why not cut us some slack and let us take it home right now?
At least use the registration for a good reason.

paradox
03-27-2006, 12:12 PM
I'd like the repeal of the loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect at the very least. Neither does a damn thing to increase safety.

How 'bout an exemption from the handgun safety test for homemade handguns that aren't made to sell.

Open regestration for newly purchased assult weapons and .50s.

A state recognized militia: a volunteer force that only gives allegence to the State and after training can buy all the fun things. Stuff like machine guns, silencers, SBRs, etc. The state militia can only be mobilized within California or the other 49 states with permission from their Governers. We need a force that cannot be sent overseas during hurricane/fire/flood/earthquake season.

Tom Riddle
03-27-2006, 12:15 PM
GLEN,

I agree with Rascal. I realize that every handgun we purchase in this state is automatically attached to our name, DL number and SS number and right thumb print (or all 10 fingers in the case of a CCW). In this fact is also stated the caliber and type. If I already own a model 1911 .45, or Glock, how is purchasing another .45 or 9mm or .357, going to make me more of a danger to myself or others?

Your other points are well founded with the exception (IMHO), that any law can be changed or altered if enough responsible voters lean heavily on the elected population.

383green
03-27-2006, 1:13 PM
how do you demonstrate that you already have a handgun? registration, that's the problem. the cure is worse than the ill. between the two, I will take the 10-day wait.

How about, if you bring a firearm to the gun store with you (unloaded and secured, of course!), you're exempt from the waiting period? Since you clearly already have access to a firearm at the time of purchase, the "cooling off" period obviously won't make a bit of difference. No registration lookup is needed. I don't see that ownership needs to be proven, because supposedly the whole point of the waiting period is to keep somebody from getting access to a gun on short notice when they're in a temporary state of rage.

Of course, the newly-purchased gun will still be registered... :mad:

This is all just dreaming, anyway. The real purpose behind all of these firearms restrictions is disarmament, not any of the supposed "save the children" justifications that are given. As long as I'm dreaming, how about passing a law that requires the government to hand you an M16 when you register for the draft? ;)

383green
03-27-2006, 1:17 PM
How about a modification of the "safety device" law. As things stand, forcing a new gun owner to purchase yet another trigger lock is just silly. Let's let people bring in a lock.

I think the powerful handgun lock lobby will push back hard on this one... :eek:

While I don't like the buy-a-lock requirement, either, anybody who owns a proper gun safe can just fill out the I-have-a-safe affidavit instead of buying the lock.

brando
03-27-2006, 1:31 PM
Ugh, don't get me started. I think the gun laws are important and need to be strict, but they should lean in favor of folks with training and a proven trusted track record. For example, I'm a 12 year Army vet with years and years of training and combat experience, with nothing besides a few parking tickets on my record. I don't need a Class III weapon, but why can't I have an SBR?

I say don't trust Joe Blow with a gun until he's passed adequate training. Waiting periods and registration is good, but once Joe shows he's a proficient and responsible shooter and can walk the line (ie no incidents with police) he should be trusted with more restricted guns.

It's just like driving a car.

I'm all for stricter gun laws, but allow full access.

Inkman
03-27-2006, 1:38 PM
When talking of chiping away at the laws on the books right now, i think the easiest one to tackle would be the 10 day waiting period. Especially if connected to current gun ownership like some have already mentioned. If you're in the system already, why the wait when you already have access to a gun or guns. That one would be the lowest one on the radar to tackle first IMHO and would probably present the least defense from the antis, compared to what we could try and tackle.

Al

kantstudien
03-27-2006, 1:43 PM
If we are to fight to appeal something, it needs to be big, like SB23, DOJ Roster of "Safe" Handguns, or the AWB. I don't give a ***** about the locks or even the wait, but we would only get these requirements removed at what cost? The antis would want something in return, so we get screwed by even more restrictive legislation on something else for little in return.

DSA_FAL
03-27-2006, 1:45 PM
I would like to see SB23 modified to allow two evil features before the gun becomes evil. That would make it more in line with the dearly departed federal AWB.

LOW2000
03-27-2006, 2:00 PM
I mean things like exempting a current handgun owner from the 10 day wait when purchasing a new handgun. Why not? They already have a handgun, and could commit a crime if they wanted.

Thoughts?

I made that very same arguement a couple weeks ago, thinking about it more, I think that the counter-arguement would be that someone could buy a gun, turn around and sell it, then not have the means to commit the crime without purchasing another weapon. The only way around that would be blanket registration and tracking of ownership of ALL firearms, and I don't really like the idea of that.

RRangel
03-27-2006, 2:08 PM
The Bill of Rights declares a right to keep and bear arms, it does not confer a privilege upon the citizen, but a restriction upon government.

Ugh, don't get me started. I think the gun laws are important and need to be strict, but they should lean in favor of folks with training and a proven trusted track record. For example, I'm a 12 year Army vet with years and years of training and combat experience, with nothing besides a few parking tickets on my record. I don't need a Class III weapon, but why can't I have an SBR?

I say don't trust Joe Blow with a gun until he's passed adequate training. Waiting periods and registration is good, but once Joe shows he's a proficient and responsible shooter and can walk the line (ie no incidents with police) he should be trusted with more restricted guns.

It's just like driving a car.

I'm all for stricter gun laws, but allow full access.

CALI-gula
03-27-2006, 2:42 PM
NCIS is the background check. It is instant and you know within minutes if you are clear to buy the gun or not. There is no need for the 10 day waiting period. My brother in another state bought a new Kimber from an FFL dealer last weekend at a gun show, and took it home the same day.

The 10 day wait is a "Cooling off" period for people that might have bought a gun to shoot their wife due to an argument. It was once 15 days in CA, but when NCIS came about, the majority of the country rescinded their 5 day waiting periods, made popular by the Brady Campaign, and CA in kind shaved off 5 days.

If you are already a gun owner, either with an active AW or have a DROS within the past year, and you pass the NCIS, there should be no need for a 10 day wait. However, I have found surprisingly that a large number of gun owners think a 5 day wait for NEW gun buyers with no preior purchases is acceptable, believing that the "buy a gun to shoot your wife becasue you are pissed-off" theory is valid. But if you already own a gun... what's the point of a 10 day wait?

More unintended consequences by the anti-2nd Amendment Groups; The ten day wait only encourages people to buy more guns! It's another trip to the gun store in a time period that most people would not normally make. On almost every one of me 10 day returns for pick-up, I buy another gun of some kind when I return to the store, whether it be a consignment handgun, a new handgun (if the previous was consignment or rifle) or a rifle, or ???. If it weren't for the 10 day wait, I would probably own half the amount of guns as I own now. :D

FFL dealers probably THANK the Brady campaign and the Anti-2nd Amendment legislature for the 10 day waiting period!! It's just more trips by consumers to the gun store!!


.

383green
03-27-2006, 2:42 PM
The Bill of Rights declares a right to keep and bear arms, it does not confer a privilege upon the citizen, but a restriction upon government.

+infinity!

Maybe the best gun law reform would be for us to take up a collection to fund moving the antis to a country with a legal system more to their liking (i.e., totalitarian and/or socialist). :mad:

gmcem50
03-27-2006, 3:17 PM
Let's hear some thoughts about reforms that stand a chance of passing.

Please note... this doesn't include shall-issue CCWs or a repeal of SB23. Neither is going to happen with our current Legislature.

I mean things like exempting a current handgun owner from the 10 day wait when purchasing a new handgun. Why not? They already have a handgun, and could commit a crime if they wanted. This would be kinda tough for the left to argue against. Same with exempting CCW holders from the waiting period.

How about a modification of the "safety device" law. As things stand, forcing a new gun owner to purchase yet another trigger lock is just silly. Let's let people bring in a lock. Sure, maybe the antis will scream "But they could just buy one lock and use itt o buy gun after gun!" True... but then, there's nothing forcing them to use the eight dozen locks they accumulate now.

Not broad, sweeping sea-change pieces of legislation... small victories that will increase freedom, decrease hysteria, and stand a good chance of NRA support.

Thoughts?


I don't mean to rain on your parade, but I think the premise is flawed because it assumes there is any common sense in the legislture and clearly (based on years of evidence) there is none.

slowjonn
03-27-2006, 5:25 PM
IMHO, you are not going to see an end to the 10 day wait. There was a case from back east recently where the instant background check was brought under fire because the initial check showed that the guy was clear to buy the gun then later it was found that he was a prohibited person. Some kind of glitch. I know that is only one example, but that is all they need.

Barring the "big ticket" issues, I would like to see the certified handgun roster go away. There is just no sense in it. I would also like to see a change in the hi-cap mag area. Whats the difference if I have two 30 round mags versus six 10 round mags? Just a few more reloads is all. Last I would like to see at least a change reference C&R guns as they relate to assault weapons. Something like a M1A1 Carbine should not be considered an assault weapon. That is more of a collector gun and should not have the same status as the evil black rifles. How cool would it have been to get those FN 49's with the 20 round detachable mags?

I realize that there should not be any infringments on us but these ideas would be where I would start.

shecky
03-27-2006, 5:41 PM
Ugh, don't get me started. I think the gun laws are important and need to be strict, but they should lean in favor of folks with training and a proven trusted track record. For example, I'm a 12 year Army vet with years and years of training and combat experience, with nothing besides a few parking tickets on my record. I don't need a Class III weapon, but why can't I have an SBR?

I say don't trust Joe Blow with a gun until he's passed adequate training. Waiting periods and registration is good, but once Joe shows he's a proficient and responsible shooter and can walk the line (ie no incidents with police) he should be trusted with more restricted guns.

It's just like driving a car.

I'm all for stricter gun laws, but allow full access.

Unlike driving a car, gun ownership is a right, not a privilege, though it's not necessarily a bad idea to get people training of some type.

blkA4alb
03-27-2006, 5:57 PM
Unlike driving a car, gun ownership is a right, not a privilege, though it's not necessarily a bad idea to get people training of some type.
i also feel that training of some sort is not harmful. one of the scariest things to me is going to the indoor gun range and seeing a group of guys go in to rent handguns. and you hear them say "its just like the movies dude!!" it scares me to death that they allow anyone to walk in with NO training or experience and rent a .45ACP for their FIRST time firing any gun. i think a basic safety test should be required. for sure. and they should have to rent a .22lr pistol if it is there first time, then work up to the bigger cartridges.

brando
03-27-2006, 6:38 PM
Right to own a gun? Sure, but I think there should be different levels here. I don't think anyone, meaning the average citizen who watches too many John Woo films and knows jack about firearms, should have a RIGHT to have anything they want. I think that should require trust and demonstrated proficiency. I think if they categorized weapons and made each category available based on a proven track record of lawfulness and training/proficiency, then lots of the problems would be resolved. For example:

Category 1 - Slide Action/Breach Shotgun, .22LR bolt action rifles

Category 2 - Centerfire Bolt Action Rifles and Handguns

Category 3 - Semi-Auto shotguns and Rifles

Category 4 - Assault Weapons (Category 3 military-style weapons)

Category 5 - Short Barrelled Rifles/Shotguns

Category 6 - Class III

The way an individual acquires a permit to own a certain category requires training and background checks. Initially, anyone could own Category 1. That would be the 2nd Ammendment issue - "If you're scared, you can buy a shotgun to protect your home or if you want to plink, go buy a plinker." Nothing is required besides the DROS and background check.

The other categories require state/gov sanctioned firearms training. Of course there would have to be a standard somehow and people should actually be able to fail - for instance, the dickhead that was flagging the hell out of me at the range the other day. Once that requirement is met, the individual gets an updated permit that says Cat 2. Now he can go into a store, show that permit and buy a handgun, etc.

Each step up is just another hoop to go through. The point being is that if an individual wants access to the most "evil" weapons not only does he have to prove trustworthy to society (clean record), he's got to pass quite a bit of training.

Even looking at this from the Gun Control Advocate's point of view, this would make access limited and set restrictions. Only the most qualified get access to the "evil" stuff. I think that would satisfy some of their concerns.

From our point of view, if you could have an SBR or a semi-auto Barrett .50, wouldn't you take the effort to get qualified?

It's a win-win senario and honestly, I think this kind of compromise on both sides is the only way we'll be able to reach some common ground and progress.

Satex
03-27-2006, 6:45 PM
I agree with paradox and would like to add another important point. The new "safety" chambers load indicators will in my mind result in more accidents for the simple reason that people will count on them and not check the weapon properly as taught today and they will misinterpret the indicator and bang, an accident waiting to happen!

I'd like the repeal of the loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect at the very least. Neither does a damn thing to increase safety.

How 'bout an exemption from the handgun safety test for homemade handguns that aren't made to sell.

Open regestration for newly purchased assult weapons and .50s.

A state recognized militia: a volunteer force that only gives allegence to the State and after training can buy all the fun things. Stuff like machine guns, silencers, SBRs, etc. The state militia can only be mobilized within California or the other 49 states with permission from their Governers. We need a force that cannot be sent overseas during hurricane/fire/flood/earthquake season.

As for the state recognized militia, don't we already have one? and its called "the national guard"?
Following the events of Katrina we received explicit guidance from our president. Our president told us not to rely on government support in case of an emergency and requested that we be responsible for our own well being. I believe he stated that each one of us should be self reliant for several days. I completely agree with him and I believe CA should follow the lead of our president enacting laws to allow us to protect ourselves in case of an emergency.

kenc9
03-27-2006, 6:56 PM
I would consider these rules proper gun control.

1) If you rob or steal with a gun double the crime time.

2) If you have a collectors FFL or 01 FFL there are no gun restrictions.

3) If you have never been convicted of a serious crime there is no restrictions and over 21 and have had Hunters safety or safe handleing courses .

4) If a handgun ever passes a drop test it is good forever.

5) CCW permits given except for reasonable cause.

6) The DOJ and BATF should treat all people with respect and that we are all on the same side.

-ken

7) After 5 years of gun ownership and either a Hunters safety Course or Safe Handling Course there are no longer any restrictions.

Librarian
03-27-2006, 6:56 PM
I think that should require trust and demonstrated proficiency. I think if they categorized weapons and made each category available based on a proven track record of lawfulness and training/proficiency, then lots of the problems would be resolved. And when the training is specified by this legislature, will it actually be useful to the trainees? And when the legislature requires licensed trainers, and refuses to certify any trainers? Or when the legislature allows one class per year, with 10 students? Or when the legislature sets the fees for the training and certification at $10,000?

I agree training is in itself good and reasonable. Allowing this legislature any hand in it at all opens up possibilities for abuse.

Remember, this legislature
created the 'safe guns' list
created the Handgun Safety Certificate program on top of the similarly useless Basic Firearms Safety Certificate
added Browning .50 cal rifles to their 'assault weapon' definition
-- none of which educated shooters or made anyone safer.

'Safer' isn't the issue here. Control is.

50ae
03-27-2006, 6:58 PM
Come on, I'd expect that on some other website but on here, you should know better that the NG is a standing army and not a militia.


As for the state recognized militia, don't we already have one? and its called "the national guard"?.

ohsmily
03-27-2006, 7:01 PM
Right to own a gun? Sure, but I think there should be different levels here. I don't think anyone, meaning the average citizen who watches too many John Woo films and knows jack about firearms, should have a RIGHT to have anything they want. I think that should require trust and demonstrated proficiency. I think if they categorized weapons and made each category available based on a proven track record of lawfulness and training/proficiency, then lots of the problems would be resolved. For example:

Category 1 - Slide Action/Breach Shotgun, .22LR bolt action rifles

Category 2 - Centerfire Bolt Action Rifles and Handguns

Category 3 - Semi-Auto shotguns and Rifles

Category 4 - Assault Weapons (Category 3 military-style weapons)

Category 5 - Short Barrelled Rifles/Shotguns

Category 6 - Class III

The way an individual acquires a permit to own a certain category requires training and background checks. Initially, anyone could own Category 1. That would be the 2nd Ammendment issue - "If you're scared, you can buy a shotgun to protect your home or if you want to plink, go buy a plinker." Nothing is required besides the DROS and background check.

The other categories require state/gov sanctioned firearms training. Of course there would have to be a standard somehow and people should actually be able to fail - for instance, the dickhead that was flagging the hell out of me at the range the other day. Once that requirement is met, the individual gets an updated permit that says Cat 2. Now he can go into a store, show that permit and buy a handgun, etc.

Each step up is just another hoop to go through. The point being is that if an individual wants access to the most "evil" weapons not only does he have to prove trustworthy to society (clean record), he's got to pass quite a bit of training.

Even looking at this from the Gun Control Advocate's point of view, this would make access limited and set restrictions. Only the most qualified get access to the "evil" stuff. I think that would satisfy some of their concerns.

From our point of view, if you could have an SBR or a semi-auto Barrett .50, wouldn't you take the effort to get qualified?

It's a win-win senario and honestly, I think this kind of compromise on both sides is the only way we'll be able to reach some common ground and progress.

How much will this training cost? It won't be cheap. What about people who can't afford it or don't have the time? I guess the people who don't have as much money will be deprived their constitutional right OR they will have less of a constitutional right then others who can afford it. Your training/ownership schema is very restrictive. What about people who need a gun quickly b/c of a safety issue (death threats, etc). I guess they couldn't get a handgun to protect themselves under your system b/c they won't have taken all the courses.

People are NOT shooting themselves left and right for lack of firearms skill. There will ALWAYS be accidents and stupid people, but, your idea about required training for the guns is very big brother. It seems that you have a "holier than thou" outlook because of your military training and the fact that you would go right to "level 6". Don't forget that we want to encourage gun ownership, not further restrict it. Again, accidental/negligent shootings aren't a frequent occurrence. Your system would aim at solving a problem that is extremely small.

Honestly, I find your idea to be morally and constitutionally repugnant.

ohsmily
03-27-2006, 7:04 PM
As for the state recognized militia, don't we already have one? and its called "the national guard"?

So if the national guard is the militia, does the Federal Printing Office embody free speech/free press? WOW! you are all messed up.

"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." (this was off the top of my head, not sure if it is verbatim correct).

The National Guard won't stand up to the federal government when/if it infringes core rights. Saying the NG is the militia is like putting a fox in charge of protecting the henhouse.

brando
03-27-2006, 7:07 PM
Well, personally I'd have the Feds determine the training standards and sanctioned instructors. That way if CA DOJ wants to restrict, we can still take our classes in AZ or NV - as long as we meet federal requirements.

As for the militia...buwhahahaha

I spent enough time in TX and MI to know that a bunch of out-of-shape guys who like guns is a problem waiting to happen.

brando
03-27-2006, 7:14 PM
Honestly, I find your idea to be morally and constitutionally repugnant.

Whoa, that's pretty strong talk. Since you asked though...

What does it cost to learn how to drive? Not a whole lot. Registration is yearly. I think most folks spend a few hundred bucks on this process. In Europe people spend thousands to drive.

Cost of training would vary based on the training facility. I'm sure it could be had for very reasonable amounts ($100-300), but remember, based on my system the average user wouldn't go through more than a couple sessions.

Yep, I'm shooting everything through my military prism, but I'm not saying MIL/LEO folks would automatically have access to everything, just a leg up. Call it a perk of service.

If this was a federally mandated issue, then competition, supply/demand could feed course cost and schedule. Again, the POINT of my post is to find a middle ground. The Gun Nuts aren't going away and neither are the Anti-Gun Nuts.

I'm trying to be a part of the solution and not part of the problem, repugnant or not.

C.G.
03-27-2006, 7:25 PM
Whoa, that's pretty strong talk. Since you asked though...

What does it cost to learn how to drive? Not a whole lot. Registration is yearly. I think most folks spend a few hundred bucks on this process. In Europe people spend thousands to drive.

Cost of training would vary based on the training facility. I'm sure it could be had for very reasonable amounts ($100-300), but remember, based on my system the average user wouldn't go through more than a couple sessions.

Yep, I'm shooting everything through my military prism, but I'm not saying MIL/LEO folks would automatically have access to everything, just a leg up. Call it a perk of service.

If this was a federally mandated issue, then competition, supply/demand could feed course cost and schedule. Again, the POINT of my post is to find a middle ground. The Gun Nuts aren't going away and neither are the Anti-Gun Nuts.

I'm trying to be a part of the solution and not part of the problem, repugnant or not.

Your idea of needed courses is a good one, but don't think it would work very well in real world. Within long these courses would be reduced to the lowest common denominator and not much use (example, the Handgun Safety and Hunter's Courses), so that people could pass. End result would be having to take something that wastes one's time and money.

Mute
03-27-2006, 7:31 PM
I spent enough time in TX and MI to know that a bunch of out-of-shape guys who like guns is a problem waiting to happen.

I see. So you have documented proof that this is the case. Or is it merely conjecture on your part? It seems you're perfectly happy to support this idea of training and permits system only because you're already in the category that allows you the highest benefit. That seems kind of elitist to me. And just in case you wish to speculate more - about how you must have touched a nerve - no, I'm not offended because I fall outside of the priveleged circle. I have more than my share of training and can afford more than enough to qualify for any of your arbitrary categories.

Your attitude is no different than those who would completely strip us of all our firearms. With a broad stroke you paint a huge segment of gunowners into the same category as the idiots and the irresponsible in our society. Yet these people are no more representative of "untrained" firearms owner than drunk drivers are of all car owners. Maybe you should thinking through your position a little more before you lend your whole hearted support to such hair-brained schemes.

brando
03-27-2006, 7:32 PM
Give me a REALISTIC alternative then?

383green
03-27-2006, 8:19 PM
Honestly, I find your idea to be morally and constitutionally repugnant.

Ditto. He's entitled to his opinion... and those of us who don't like it are entitled to add him to our ignore lists.

blacklisted
03-27-2006, 8:31 PM
Right to own a gun? Sure, but I think there should be different levels here. I don't think anyone, meaning the average citizen who watches too many John Woo films and knows jack about firearms, should have a RIGHT to have anything they want. I think that should require trust and demonstrated proficiency. I think if they categorized weapons and made each category available based on a proven track record of lawfulness and training/proficiency, then lots of the problems would be resolved. For example:

Category 1 - Slide Action/Breach Shotgun, .22LR bolt action rifles

Category 2 - Centerfire Bolt Action Rifles and Handguns

Category 3 - Semi-Auto shotguns and Rifles

Category 4 - Assault Weapons (Category 3 military-style weapons)

Category 5 - Short Barrelled Rifles/Shotguns

Category 6 - Class III

The way an individual acquires a permit to own a certain category requires training and background checks. Initially, anyone could own Category 1. That would be the 2nd Ammendment issue - "If you're scared, you can buy a shotgun to protect your home or if you want to plink, go buy a plinker." Nothing is required besides the DROS and background check.

The other categories require state/gov sanctioned firearms training. Of course there would have to be a standard somehow and people should actually be able to fail - for instance, the dickhead that was flagging the hell out of me at the range the other day. Once that requirement is met, the individual gets an updated permit that says Cat 2. Now he can go into a store, show that permit and buy a handgun, etc.

Each step up is just another hoop to go through. The point being is that if an individual wants access to the most "evil" weapons not only does he have to prove trustworthy to society (clean record), he's got to pass quite a bit of training.

Even looking at this from the Gun Control Advocate's point of view, this would make access limited and set restrictions. Only the most qualified get access to the "evil" stuff. I think that would satisfy some of their concerns.

From our point of view, if you could have an SBR or a semi-auto Barrett .50, wouldn't you take the effort to get qualified?

It's a win-win senario and honestly, I think this kind of compromise on both sides is the only way we'll be able to reach some common ground and progress.

And what makes a SBR more lethal/needs more proficiency than any other weapon?

Sorry, but you don't need a license to exercise your rights. Would you be in favor of a license to practice freedom of speech?

Category I : verbal
Category II: written
Category III: broadcast and internet

I don't think so. Freedom of speech can be as deadly, if not more deadly than guns when used improperly.

brando
03-27-2006, 8:34 PM
I dunno, ask the NFA folks. Probably concealability.

You need different category of operator's licenses to drive motorcycles, fork lifts and heavy machinery, all based on training and proven proficiency, though NONE of those are designed as weapons (though they can be deadly in the wrong hands). I'm just proposing the same sort of level of standards.

I think you guys are totally overreacting here. You're slamming me with some pretty harsh words all because I offer up a compromise approach to firearms ownership. Geeez...

blacklisted
03-27-2006, 8:35 PM
Give me a REALISTIC alternative then?

Keep it the way it is now, but with the stupid laws repealed (most of the NFA, 86 machine gun ban). Keep most of the GCA of 1968.

blacklisted
03-27-2006, 8:38 PM
I dunno, ask the NFA folks. Probably concealability.

I think you guys are totally overreacting here. You're slamming me with some pretty harsh words all because I offer up a compromise approach to firearms ownership. Geeez...

I will not use harsh words, but I will say that I do not support any compromises on our second amendment freedoms. I also do not accept a compromise on any other freedom guaranteed to citizens of this country in the Bill of Rights. All of our rights are equally important. If you take away or severely restrict one, the others may fall as well.

The only thing I see as necessary is to insure that only law abiding citizens are able to purchase or acquire firearms.

brando
03-27-2006, 8:51 PM
The only thing I see as necessary is to insure that only law abiding citizens are able to purchase or acquire firearms.

Then we're in agreement. My proposal does not prevent ownership of firearms to citizens, it just restricts certain ones (as the laws currently do).

EBWhite
03-27-2006, 8:52 PM
However, why prevent citizens from having guns? Felons will have them no matter what

blacklisted
03-27-2006, 8:53 PM
However, why prevent citizens from having guns? Felons will have them no matter what

We can't make it easy for them.

Example: Even if the law was that way, would you knowingly sell someone convicted of armed robbery a firearm?

Bruce
03-27-2006, 9:23 PM
I think you guys are totally overreacting here. You're slamming me with some pretty harsh words all because I offer up a compromise approach to firearms ownership. Geeez...

You want MORE government controls when the government has TOO MUCH control already!
Did you pay attention when you were sworn in? Do you remember the part about support and defend the Constitution of the United States?

EBWhite
03-27-2006, 9:29 PM
We can't make it easy for them.

Example: Even if the law was that way, would you knowingly sell someone convicted of armed robbery a firearm?


Well, what about this...

You purchase a hi-cap magazine and get caught doing it. You get a felony and cannot buy a gun for a long time (or ever). Is that really fair when you just wanted to buy a mag when the law is BS? No....

Do we want a murderer or rapist or bank robber to be able to buy guns, No...so where do we draw the line?

Maybe only violent felonies?

blacklisted
03-27-2006, 9:29 PM
Maybe only violent felonies?

I'd support it.

Charliegone
03-27-2006, 10:14 PM
I'd support it.

Same here.

CALI-gula
03-27-2006, 11:30 PM
IMHO, you are not going to see an end to the 10 day wait. There was a case from back east recently where the instant background check was brought under fire because the initial check showed that the guy was clear to buy the gun then later it was found that he was a prohibited person. Some kind of glitch. I know that is only one example, but that is all they need.

I would love to know what state that was "back east" as there are very few states that still have waiting periods. And when they do prevent someone from purchasing, there is more than enough documentation showing those that attempt such illegal purchases blocked by the NCIS are rarely (usually never) prosecuted by federal or local authorities.

In any case, you have mis-read exactly the opposite of what most (including myself) are posting about the 10 day wait. While I would like to see it removed for ALL buyers, we have lugubriously accepted that CA wants to keep it in place, but it should definitely not apply to those that already own guns, especially those with recent DROS/AW registrations on file. These DROS records are clearly known by the state DOJ, but most dealers have customers' purchases on file as well, not only from previous 4473's but also general customer buying history for their store. Most of the dealers I buy from know exactly what ammo I purchased back in August 2005 just by punching up my phone number in their CPU.

If I have numerous ARs and AKs or "other" items registered with the state, I am still expected to wait 10 days for a custom engraved Perazzi Shotgun valued in the 6-digit range, which I may never even shoot? I may have waited years just to have it made! But I have to wait 10 days for this? (See link).

http://www.perazzi.it/dataentry/upload/25/96/912_bottom.jpg

http://www.perazzi.it/dataentry/upload/25/96/912_left.jpg

http://www.perazzi.it/dataentry/upload/25/96/912_right.jpg

It makes little sense to restrict buyers who already own guns, verified by recent DROS records. The NCIS background check is still performed, but if a buyer already owns a gun, additional guns are most always just adding to the collection.

artherd
03-27-2006, 11:43 PM
I've argued for personal ownership of freaking nukes before, and I will do so again. Quite simply, they are self-regulating for purely financial reasons. Even a small onen will cost a boatload, and you're not going to keep it in a can under your garage.

At best I am for absolutely minimal and strictly scrutenized legislation on the safe-storage of dangerous devices such as guns, gasolene, nukes, chainsaws, howitzers, and swiming pools. I'm for tax credits for gun safes, etc.

That's it, no other law restricting arms is legal, period.

aklover_91
03-28-2006, 12:22 AM
Right to own a gun? Sure, but I think there should be different levels here. I don't think anyone, meaning the average citizen who watches too many John Woo films and knows jack about firearms, should have a RIGHT to have anything they want. I think that should require trust and demonstrated proficiency. I think if they categorized weapons and made each category available based on a proven track record of lawfulness and training/proficiency, then lots of the problems would be resolved. For example:

Category 1 - Slide Action/Breach Shotgun, .22LR bolt action rifles

Category 2 - Centerfire Bolt Action Rifles and Handguns

Category 3 - Semi-Auto shotguns and Rifles

Category 4 - Assault Weapons (Category 3 military-style weapons)

Category 5 - Short Barrelled Rifles/Shotguns

Category 6 - Class III

The way an individual acquires a permit to own a certain category requires training and background checks. Initially, anyone could own Category 1. That would be the 2nd Ammendment issue - "If you're scared, you can buy a shotgun to protect your home or if you want to plink, go buy a plinker." Nothing is required besides the DROS and background check.

The other categories require state/gov sanctioned firearms training. Of course there would have to be a standard somehow and people should actually be able to fail - for instance, the dickhead that was flagging the hell out of me at the range the other day. Once that requirement is met, the individual gets an updated permit that says Cat 2. Now he can go into a store, show that permit and buy a handgun, etc.

Each step up is just another hoop to go through. The point being is that if an individual wants access to the most "evil" weapons not only does he have to prove trustworthy to society (clean record), he's got to pass quite a bit of training.

Even looking at this from the Gun Control Advocate's point of view, this would make access limited and set restrictions. Only the most qualified get access to the "evil" stuff. I think that would satisfy some of their concerns.

From our point of view, if you could have an SBR or a semi-auto Barrett .50, wouldn't you take the effort to get qualified?

It's a win-win senario and honestly, I think this kind of compromise on both sides is the only way we'll be able to reach some common ground and progress.
You sir, are part of the gun rights problem. It's wrong to regulate ANY right.

aklover_91
03-28-2006, 12:27 AM
Whoa, that's pretty strong talk. Since you asked though...

What does it cost to learn how to drive? Not a whole lot. Registration is yearly. I think most folks spend a few hundred bucks on this process. In Europe people spend thousands to drive.

Cost of training would vary based on the training facility. I'm sure it could be had for very reasonable amounts ($100-300), but remember, based on my system the average user wouldn't go through more than a couple sessions.

Yep, I'm shooting everything through my military prism, but I'm not saying MIL/LEO folks would automatically have access to everything, just a leg up. Call it a perk of service.

If this was a federally mandated issue, then competition, supply/demand could feed course cost and schedule. Again, the POINT of my post is to find a middle ground. The Gun Nuts aren't going away and neither are the Anti-Gun Nuts.

I'm trying to be a part of the solution and not part of the problem, repugnant or not.
I said it already, but its WRONG TO REGULATE A RIGHT. How would you like it if a law said, "K. You need a license for free speach."
Its the same schtick, you just have a double standard.
go to www.a-human-right.com and click on "Liability"

aklover_91
03-28-2006, 12:29 AM
Well, personally I'd have the Feds determine the training standards and sanctioned instructors. That way if CA DOJ wants to restrict, we can still take our classes in AZ or NV - as long as we meet federal requirements.

As for the militia...buwhahahaha

I spent enough time in TX and MI to know that a bunch of out-of-shape guys who like guns is a problem waiting to happen.
Its better than nothing. And the national guard won't stand up for my rights anymore than the regualer army if the government turns to crap. I must agree with the previous statement that you feel you are better because of your military experience.

ohsmily
03-28-2006, 12:31 AM
You need different category of operator's licenses to drive motorcycles, fork lifts and heavy machinery, all based on training and proven proficiency, though NONE of those are designed as weapons (though they can be deadly in the wrong hands). I'm just proposing the same sort of level of standards.

I think you guys are totally overreacting here. You're slamming me with some pretty harsh words all because I offer up a compromise approach to firearms ownership. Geeez...

Driving, motorcycles, cars, heavy machinery, are NOT rights given to citizens in the CONSTITUTION. They are PRIVILEGES, gun ownership is a RIGHT. Comparing the two is APPLES and ORANGES.

Your idea just makes it harder to get guns...AND I ASK YOU AGAIN what makes you think people are suffering so greatly by NOT having the training you prescribe? I assert that people are not just accidently blowing themselves away all the time for lack of training. Granted, there are accidents but there will ALWAYS be accidents and you won't be able to help stupid people all the time...BUT, does that mean you screw everyone else...NO. Guns are fairly simple devices to operate. We don't have a nationwide gun accident epidemic (although gun banners would argue we do). When guns are used to kill, it is usually b/c that was the intention of the person wielding it.

YOU ARE TRYING TO FIX A PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T EXIST (or exists in such small numbers, that it isn't worth addressing in a multi-billion dollar, UNCONSTITUTIONAL federal program requiring various levels of training to own guns...

aklover_91
03-28-2006, 12:33 AM
I dunno, ask the NFA folks. Probably concealability.

You need different category of operator's licenses to drive motorcycles, fork lifts and heavy machinery, all based on training and proven proficiency, though NONE of those are designed as weapons (though they can be deadly in the wrong hands). I'm just proposing the same sort of level of standards.

I think you guys are totally overreacting here. You're slamming me with some pretty harsh words all because I offer up a compromise approach to firearms ownership. Geeez...
I know that my posts my seem annoying now because i've quoted you so many times, but check SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. All bullets make dead, no matter what they come out of.

grammaton76
03-28-2006, 1:39 AM
I believe part of the issue is that your bottom tiers are more restrictive than current gun laws.

Perhaps something with only four tiers, rather than cutting everyone back to bolt action and pump shotguns. I took a guy shooting tonight, who will probably be buying his first AR soonish. The gun just really "speaks" to him. If everyone had to slog through the first few tiers to get to what they want, you'd really be playing into the gun-grabbers' hands, because newbies just wouldn't get into guns if there's that many hoops to jump through. I'd jump through hoops for the advanced tiers; I'd be at FA in very short order, if it's simply a matter of getting the appropriate training.

1. What we have FEDERALLY, now. No AWB crap.
2. SBR/AOW
3. FA
4. Artillery, grenade launchers, etc

But it's vital to the future of gun ownership (and not getting more bans inflicted on us) that the stream of new gun owners continues with as little interruption as possible. My biggest issue with your particular implementation of tiering, is that there just aren't that many people who would go all the way to our PRESENT level of firearms ownership, let alone go further.

Although we'd probably all jump through the hoops, the next set of guys probably wouldn't. And thirty years from now, the next DiFi would easily take our nation of "aw, this break-action rifle is good enough for me" hosers and convince them to give up their guns like the Brits.

accordingtoome
03-28-2006, 2:43 AM
ya that gun lock thing blows. i have like 15 locks at my house

aklover_91
03-28-2006, 2:44 AM
or, just not have any firearms regulations because its a right.

brando
03-28-2006, 7:15 AM
You guys scream and yell about restricting rights, but face it, they've been restricted for quite some time! You can't have any gun you want. There are several laws that will prevent you from buying a gun (felon, dishonorable discharge, etc). The restrictions are already there, yet you guys jump up and down yelling "It's a right, it's a right!" Honestly, I think my vehicle operator's license comparison is very valid. Just like owning a gun, if you break certain laws, you lose your license.

I'm the problem with gun rights? What kind of crap is that? At least I'm trying to come up with a solution instead of *****ing and moaning about "they took my rights" and "gun laws are evil." I throw an idea out there and next thing I know, you guys come down on me like I took a dump in the holy water. Knowing how stubborn and narrow minded the gun culture can be, I guess I'm not surprised ;)

ohsmily
03-28-2006, 7:27 AM
I'm the problem with gun rights? What kind of crap is that? At least I'm trying to come up with a solution instead of *****ing and moaning about "they took my rights" and "gun laws are evil." I throw an idea out there and next thing I know, you guys come down on me like I took a dump in the holy water. Knowing how stubborn and narrow minded the gun culture can be, I guess I'm not surprised ;)

Yikes...A SOLUTION TO WHAT??? Your idea that you are so proud of creates MORE RESTRICTIONS. What is it solving? I don't get it...

Stop being defensive, take a step back, and look at what you came up with. MAYBE, if you are capable, you will realize that your idea doesn't solve ANYTHING. Rather it would be MORE harmful than the current situation. You will be NARROWING gun ownership, not broadening it. Again (you seem dense on this), your idea is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. There isn't an epidemic of gun accidents.

Stop making broad sweeping comments and why don't you respond to the specific attacks on your argument (requiring training to exercise a right, the analogy would be requiring training to exercise certain first amendment rights. Also, explain what this solves and why you think mishandling of guns is an epidemic that needs to be cured by this HUGE effort that you propose).

Mute
03-28-2006, 7:33 AM
Comparing guns with driver's licenses is a strawman argument. Driver licenses are needed to operate certain vehicles in public. It is not a necessity for purchase of said vehicles. So right there alone, you already have two very different issues. Your argument about different classes of vehicles is also flawed. Large trucks vs. regular passenger vehicles vs. motorcyles would be more akin to a handgun vs. a cannon. We have one driver license type whether you drive a Yugo or a Ferrari. And again, that license is not a prerequisite for ownership.

Yes, we already have many restrictions on our ability to own guns, but the plan you outlined basically says to the public and gun-grabbers that they were right all along and that gunowners can't be trusted until they've proven they can be trusted by a government mandate. What prevents the authorities, in the future, from saying these categories are no longer any good and only certain classes of people qualify for the higher categories regardless of their training or needs?

I'm sorry if I worded my argument a bit harsh earlier, but I'm frustrated by the fact that even gunowners are starting to see this issue from the other side of the spectrum first. If we are to push compromises, it needs to be in our favor.

slowjonn
03-28-2006, 7:37 AM
I would love to know what state that was "back east" as there are very few states that still have waiting periods.

I will try to find the article for you. The state that it happened in did not have a waiting period as I stated. It was an INSTANT check that alowed the guy to buy the gun. It was after he had the gun in hand that it was learned that he was a prohibited person.

In any case, you have mis-read exactly the opposite of what most (including myself) are posting about the 10 day wait.

Misread the opposite of???:confused: I did not misread anything. I understand what you and everyone else is saying about the 10 day wait. While I agree with you logic/ examples, I thought this was a thread about "reasonable" changes that could be made.

This thread has really deteriorated from a "what is reasonable/ doable" under real world conditions into an "all or nothing thing". I am as passionate as the next guy/ gal when it comes to our 2A rights. But I am also a realist and know things will only change little by little over time. Even the anti-gunners figured that out.

brando
03-28-2006, 7:41 AM
Back in my original post, the point was to make a compromise between those of us that want access to pretty much anything we want and the anti-gun folks who don't want us to have anything. That was the issue - compromise. Why? Because no side is going to get everything they want.

I bet the anti-gun folks could live with the idea that you earn access to more restrictive firearms through training and lawful record. For us gun owners, I thought you guys could accept the idea that anyone past 18 could have basic access to firearms, but beyond that would require the two things I just mentioned.

The anti-gun folks harp on gun accidents like it's no one's business. Cheney's mishap just made it more front page. Also, every single time I go to the range, I notice at least someone who either is completely clueless about operating a firearm and/or is completely unsafe. Luckily enough of us realize this and try to correct him on the spot.

As for my idea, it both narrows and broadens access. Right now, in CA you can't have much beyond a neutered AW, ignoring the off-list gap. That's the current state of the law. With my system, you'd be able to have an SBR or even Class III like many of the other states. The only caveat is that you have to more or less do what you're already doing - show lawful, responsible ownership, and attend a few classes. If being a law abiding citizen and taking a few classes is the only thing restricting you, what's the problem?

Again, the whole point was to find some common ground, since no one else on either side seems to want to find a compromise. It's always "all guns" or "no guns" and that's the same stubborn arguement as "I'm right, no matter what."

jnojr
03-28-2006, 8:50 AM
Back in my original post, the point was to make a compromise between those of us that want access to pretty much anything we want and the anti-gun folks who don't want us to have anything. That was the issue - compromise. Why? Because no side is going to get everything they want.

"Compromise" is a proven failure. The antis accept our compromise today, and that becomes their starting point tomorrow. Unless there's some way to make sure that the next compromise is the last for all time, that no further restrictions of any kind can ever be passed again, it isn't really a compromise... it's just more lost ground.

brando
03-28-2006, 8:52 AM
A compromise on BOTH sides...duh. They have to allow us access to the full range of firearms in exchange for earned trust and proven proficiency.

RRangel
03-28-2006, 9:37 AM
I will try to find the article for you. The state that it happened in did not have a waiting period as I stated. It was an INSTANT check that alowed the guy to buy the gun. It was after he had the gun in hand that it was learned that he was a prohibited person.

I respectfully take issue with this argument, and give you my own.

There is no system, be it background checks, or waiting periods that is perfect and will keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, or would be criminals. I think making the statement that “lets not make it easy” is one that officials and politicians who want to consolidate their power love to use.


It is my opinion that many of the problems in our society stem in large part from those of us who will take no action in regard to crime, and the problems we face as a society.

In fact we are discouraged and called vigilantes if we don’t cede the problem to under staffed law enforcement and local government. We have certain do gooders and government telling us that we shouldn’t even have a gun in our household.


There is no way that government can protect each and every one of us because that is an impossibility. As a society it is much easier to pay a tax and pretend the problems will go away. Ignorance is bliss.


Liberty has never been free so maybe we should learn to stop giving lip service. Ask yourself if you truly want freedom. If you want waiting periods and are relying on instant background checks than your answer is probably no. What someone might do is not an excuse to infringe my rights.


Remember what the Benjamin Franklin said?

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”


It’s still true today.

mow
03-28-2006, 9:55 AM
Remember what the Benjamin Franklin said?

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”


It’s still true today.

Quoted for emphasis! :D

Bruce
03-28-2006, 1:11 PM
A compromise on BOTH sides...duh. They have to allow us access to the full range of firearms in exchange for earned trust and proven proficiency.

"They" don't have to allow us anything. "They" would use your compromise as the basis for total confiscation. Such a licensing system would be the perfect vehicle for complete civilian disarmament. It is foolish to think otherwise.

brando
03-28-2006, 1:18 PM
Not, if at the basic level, the 2nd Amendment establishes a right. Sure, they can restrict the other weapons (as they currently do), but as long as the system establishes a basic right to own Category I or II, then there shouldn't be a problem. If this were established, and political climates shift (as they always do), then you may find that the more restricted items may be curtailed at one point, then a pro-gun shift reduces the restrictions.

It can go both ways - the point of a compromise in the first place.

The key is:

1. Establish a basic right to ownership
2. Afford access to the full spectrum based on proven proficiency and lawful record.

Simple and what I thought would make everyone happy.

jnojr
03-28-2006, 1:24 PM
A compromise on BOTH sides...duh. They have to allow us access to the full range of firearms in exchange for earned trust and proven proficiency.

"They" have shown, time and again, that they're willing to promise that, get what they want, and then just start a whole new round of laws and restrictions. "They" cannot be trusted, worked with, or compromised with.

California constantly has stupid little restrictions about "earned trust and proven proficiency". Each is put into place, and then used as a stepping stone towards more restrictions. Remember the HSC? That was a "compromise". Now we have the BFSC, "safe handling" test, lock requirement, etc. And now they want ammo stamping, serialization, more "safety" features, more paperwork, more red tape, more onerous requirements.

brando
03-28-2006, 1:32 PM
All the more reason to come to a consensus instead of fighting each other for the two extremes "all guns or no guns." When I was thinking about this I imagined sitting right in the middle and asking each "what do you want?"

The point is to find a middle ground because you can't have it both ways obviously. They don't trust us and we don't trust them - it's Cold War mentality and I understand that, but there is a way that both sides could be content. That's what I'm trying to offer up, that's all.

ohsmily
03-28-2006, 1:39 PM
oh, well in that case, thank you for being the "great" mediator. :rolleyes:

Mute
03-28-2006, 1:50 PM
How, exactly, does having to show a proven record of responsibility, establish a set of basic rights? This doesn't sound any different than what we're doing now. And in some cases it's actually taking steps backward.

brando
03-28-2006, 2:00 PM
Man, you guys never read my posts, do you? To quote my initial post:


Initially, anyone could own Category 1. That would be the 2nd Ammendment issue - "If you're scared, you can buy a shotgun to protect your home or if you want to plink, go buy a plinker." Nothing is required besides the DROS and background check.


So, at the lowest level you STILL retain the right to bear arms afforded by the 2nd amendment, granted it's not the full spectrum of firearms. No restrictions other than what currently exist - 18 years old, clean record, etc

We get to step forward and have access to all of the other good stuff we CURRENTLY to do not - AWs, .50 BMG, SBR, Class III - with documented training and a clean record. Again that is a STEP FORWARD from the current situation here in CA.

Woodman
03-28-2006, 2:05 PM
... exempting a current handgun owner from the 10 day wait when purchasing a new handgun. Why not? They already have a handgun, and could commit a crime if they wanted.

Don't start an argument with negative examples.
How about, "They have already passed a backround check,
and a safe handling check at time of purchase".

brando
03-28-2006, 2:07 PM
Hey, there's something we can agree on. Waiting periods aren't bad (what's the rush?) but once a proven track record has been established, what's the point? Firearms are owned, buying another one won't prevent a crime.

Mute
03-28-2006, 2:08 PM
Let's play devil's advocate. Say we adapt this scenario. Given the political climate we have, what do you think is more likely, that we get more access to firearms or that eventually they'll insist we submit to the more strictly controlled access of the higher categories even for the lowest level firearms? I mean afterall, since we accepted it for the higher categories without issue, why can't we do so for the lower categories. Isn't that a "reasonable" request?

brando
03-28-2006, 2:17 PM
Yep, in fact I imagine things would fluctuate just like they already do. The trick would be to set standards and precedents so that the law basically says "if you meet these requirements then you can have x firearm." Right now, in CA, there are laws that say "there are no requirements, you just can't have x."

Personally, I don't know how this would turn out - it was just a hypothetical solution to an age old problem here in CA. If this system was the standard, the foundation in CA, then if the anti-gun folks want to try and legislate higher standards or restrictions to certain categories, then they can try and we can fight them on it. The whole point though, was to create a system that both sides could be content with that wouldn't have to be adjusted.

Bruce
03-28-2006, 3:47 PM
The whole point though, was to create a system that both sides could be content with that wouldn't have to be adjusted.

You are so terribly naive. You have a child-like trust in the the government that would be touching if it weren't so sad. What the "other side" wants in TOTAL CIVILIAN DISARMAMENT. They want nothing less. If you really believe your former military staus and training is worth any thing to "them", then I suggest you apply to the Sheriff of Los Angeles County for a CCW.

brando
03-28-2006, 4:06 PM
You sound more paranoid than anything. Didn't Reagan say "Trust, but verify" ?

Sure, they want "no guns" and you want "all guns." Hence, both sides get neither and all the more reason to come to an agreement that both sides can be content with.

I'll take my arguement to the law makers...

PS. Who needs a CCW? If I wanted to carry guns I'd go back to Iraq.

blacklisted
03-28-2006, 4:18 PM
PS. Who needs a CCW? If I wanted to carry guns I'd go back to Iraq.

That sounds very familiar.

CALI-gula
03-28-2006, 4:22 PM
What was I thinking wasting my time here in this thread? What are we ALL thinking?

Meanwhile, as the hypothetical and improbability back & forth of passively adopting "common sense" gun laws here in CA gets out-of-control in this thread, and rudeness abounds, discussion of this very REAL world bill is mounting:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=257285&postcount=1

It is unlikely Arnold will pass this one, even if it reaches his desk - I have a feeling it won't. But in a few short years, we might have Angelides or Westly on the bridge - both liberal, both Gray Davis "wanna-be" worker-bees, both likely to sign off on any anti-gun ownership bills.

Maybe we should all jump over to that thread to discuss how we might all work together to stop it now, that and other bills like it on the horizon.

Imagine us all working together to stop Anti-2nd Amendment Hate/Terrorist groups, no different than the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens and non-citizen immigrants marching this past weekend, claiming they have rights, while presenting enough influence toward designing their own rights, even when they don't have such rights in the US under the Constitution as illegal aliens. They seem to be making headway, and getting noticed. They might be making rights for themselves as we are too busy giving up our own. Washington DC took notice of their marshing. Los Angeles city took notice. The media took BIG notice.

But we (and me as well to limited extent) are too busy dickering around about how we should ACCEPT certain forms of gun control as common sense.

What are we ALL thinking? What are we ALL doing here???



.

CALI-gula
03-28-2006, 4:26 PM
PS. Who needs a CCW? If I wanted to carry guns I'd go back to Iraq.


My post above is directive, and I thought would guide me or others elsewhere among a group by which we have common insterests, but then I see you posted this? Do you know how many times Gray Davis said things JUST LIKE THIS?? (Albeit, it was more at "if I wanted to own guns I would go back to Vietnam"!) ... And Mike Feuer, and Paul Koretz, Jack Scott, and several hundred Million Mom Marchers, and .... that comment is a little more disturbing than you might realize, but maybe it is simple youthful talk coming forth. Give yourself another 10 years in CA and you might think differently.

There are areas of Oakland, Los Angeles, and Sacramento that are more dangerous than Iraq. Yes, you might be safer in Iraq.

brando
03-28-2006, 4:31 PM
Okay, I'll reprase that..."I don't need or want a CCW, thanks."

blacklisted
03-28-2006, 4:36 PM
Okay, I'll reprase that..."I don't need or want a CCW, thanks."

That's better. :D

aklover_91
03-28-2006, 5:51 PM
You guys scream and yell about restricting rights, but face it, they've been restricted for quite some time! You can't have any gun you want. There are several laws that will prevent you from buying a gun (felon, dishonorable discharge, etc). The restrictions are already there, yet you guys jump up and down yelling "It's a right, it's a right!" Honestly, I think my vehicle operator's license comparison is very valid. Just like owning a gun, if you break certain laws, you lose your license.

I'm the problem with gun rights? What kind of crap is that? At least I'm trying to come up with a solution instead of *****ing and moaning about "they took my rights" and "gun laws are evil." I throw an idea out there and next thing I know, you guys come down on me like I took a dump in the holy water. Knowing how stubborn and narrow minded the gun culture can be, I guess I'm not surprised ;)
Just because they've been restricting righst for a while doesn't make it right.

aklover_91
03-28-2006, 5:53 PM
Not, if at the basic level, the 2nd Amendment establishes a right. Sure, they can restrict the other weapons (as they currently do), but as long as the system establishes a basic right to own Category I or II, then there shouldn't be a problem. If this were established, and political climates shift (as they always do), then you may find that the more restricted items may be curtailed at one point, then a pro-gun shift reduces the restrictions.

It can go both ways - the point of a compromise in the first place.

The key is:

1. Establish a basic right to ownership
2. Afford access to the full spectrum based on proven proficiency and lawful record.

Simple and what I thought would make everyone happy.
its still a double standard. you do that, and they can make it so you need to pass "safe thought" tests for the right to free speach.

aklover_91
03-28-2006, 5:57 PM
Man, you guys never read my posts, do you? To quote my initial post:



So, at the lowest level you STILL retain the right to bear arms afforded by the 2nd amendment, granted it's not the full spectrum of firearms. No restrictions other than what currently exist - 18 years old, clean record, etc

We get to step forward and have access to all of the other good stuff we CURRENTLY to do not - AWs, .50 BMG, SBR, Class III - with documented training and a clean record. Again that is a STEP FORWARD from the current situation here in CA.
coughSHALLNOTBEINFRINGEDcough

brando
03-28-2006, 6:01 PM
Okay, you guys made your point. No compromise. All guns for everyone. Things just stay the same.

Bruce
03-28-2006, 6:01 PM
Didn't Reagan say "Trust, but verify" ?


"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one
who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve
it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are
inevitably ruined."

-- Patrick Henry (speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention,
5 June 1778)

Bruce
03-28-2006, 6:03 PM
PS. If I wanted to carry guns I'd go back to Iraq.

I doubt you've ever been anywhere near there.

brando
03-28-2006, 6:15 PM
What do you want to know? My deployment dates?

In country 06SEP04 to 01JUL05. Spent most of my time in Mosul and Dohuk - carried an M4 and M9 most of the time. Drove Nissan Patrol SUVs or M1114s most of the time. Had four mortar rounds miss me by about 25m at FOB Patriot on 30NOV04 while I was on a portapotty. Did a 360 at 40mph in an 1114 after hitting the oil slick from a vehicle hit by an IED. Lost 2 unit members KIA and 3 WIA (evac to Bragg) on 13OCT04. Had Kurdish Peshmerga bodyguards when outside the wire, got a great tan, did my duty.

Alphahookups
03-28-2006, 6:19 PM
PS. Who needs a CCW? If I wanted to carry guns I'd go back to Iraq.

Are you joking me. I guess if you are in LA and 5 thugs decide to jump you you can Bruce Lee your way out...

Give me a break.

Bruce
03-28-2006, 6:21 PM
What do you want to know? My deployment dates?

In country 06SEP04 to 01JUL05. Spent most of my time in Mosul and Dohuk - carried an M4 and M9 most of the time. Drove Nissan Patrol SUVs or M1114s most of the time. Had four mortar rounds miss me by about 25m at FOB Patriot on 30NOV04 while I was on a portapotty. Did a 360 at 40mph in an 1114 after hitting the oil slick from a vehicle hit by an IED. Lost 2 unit members KIA and 3 WIA (evac to Bragg) on 13OCT04. Had Kurdish Peshmerga bodyguards when outside the wire, got a great tan, did my duty.

Uh-huh.......If you say so...:rolleyes:

brando
03-28-2006, 6:38 PM
Hehe, I don't care if you don't believe me. You doubted me, I gave you specifics. Want to know how much I hated the MUIC at Bragg? How long I spent burning up in Kuwait? Who my bodyguard's names were? That they carried AKs with the stocks removed? Check out my bastardized mini-AK I used to carry on my A-Pack...

brando
03-28-2006, 6:41 PM
Are you joking me. I guess if you are in LA and 5 thugs decide to jump you you can Bruce Lee your way out...

Give me a break.

No, you guys are right and I corrected that statement. I personally don't have an interest in CCW, but you go right ahead. There are, unfortunately, folks I've overheard at gun shops and ranges who seems to have this bizarre desire to carry that has less to do with protection and more to do with being cool. Honestly, I'm sure this is a minority, but having carried quite a bit I know it's more of a pain when you're in a permissive environment. Go right ahead though. I admit I was wrong.

brando
03-28-2006, 6:42 PM
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one
who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve
it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are
inevitably ruined."

-- Patrick Henry (speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention,
5 June 1778)

That's good stuff, and exactly why a LOT of folks are pissed about the NSA wiretapping issue...

Bruce
03-28-2006, 9:06 PM
Hehe, I don't care if you don't believe me. You doubted me, I gave you specifics. Want to know how much I hated the MUIC at Bragg? How long I spent burning up in Kuwait? Who my bodyguard's names were? That they carried AKs with the stocks removed? Check out my bastardized mini-AK I used to carry on my A-Pack...

Sure, why don't you tell us all about it. :rolleyes:

CALI-gula
03-29-2006, 12:08 AM
I have seen more than one post by others here on Calguns.net that back up brando's military credibility and claims. Doubting him is disrespectful, as you likely know no more about him than he does of you, nor you of I, or I of you. We can still give him credit where it is due, and ignore any motivation to doubt, even if you don't agree with many of brando's designs for regulation and lack of interest in CCW. Your doubt does not prove or disprove his military experience - let it go. I don't agree with most of his ideas either, but my disparagement with them doesn't turn to belittling his work as a soldier.

I think the longer brando is back here in crazy CA, the more his point of view will change about Joe-citizen gun ownership, goldilocks gun laws, and every day self protection (including CCW) in precarious environments, especially when it may mean also protecting your wife, 7 year old daughter and 3 year old son.

I think we are seeing a difference in opinions more because of a delta between ages and experience with a broken CA system, rather than ideas derived from the same point of reference. Give brando some time to adjust, and be fair to his work in the least, even if you itemize his ideas as wrong-minded.

.

grammaton76
03-29-2006, 1:30 AM
Drove Nissan Patrol SUVs or M1114s most of the time.

Ok... I don't doubt your military service or whatnot, but as a happy Nissan Pathfinder owner, I'm really curious what the Nissan patrol SUVs are based off of. Any details/links on these beasts?

brando
03-29-2006, 8:41 AM
Thanks CALI-gula, you're more on the mark. Sure, I don't share the same opinions on gun control and the gun culture as a whole, but I've gotten rather used to being lumped in with the kool-aid drinking treehuggers. I have nothing to do with those looneys and believe me, much of the Left. At the same time, I just can't subscribe the to the ultra-conservative party line either.

So we may disagree, and I will honestly exchange discourse with you guys and keep a very open mind, but don't lump me in with the loonies.


As for the AK, they go for about $150 in Northern Iraq. This one was a chop-shop job where they brought the barrel length down to near AKR size. You guys would have loved the arms markets. You could buy anything just about. Glock and Walther P99s were the only things that were more expensive than here (about $1000). You could get an MP5 for about a thousand bucks, even a 12.7mm DshK. Still, it was cheapest just to take weapons from bad guys. I had that AK as just a backup as we operated in very small teams in rather remote areas and the idea of having something that shot a more common-to-Iraq caliber seemed like a good idea.

As for Nissan Patrols, they aren't Pathfinders. In fact, I don't know what to compare them to but they are totally generic 4x4s and all over Iraq. We bolted some plate steel in them to armor them up a bit, but in general they weren't for the most dangerous areas. We did lots of off roading in the mountains, in mud and snow, so they were much handier than the 14,000lb armored Humvees.

The attachment below is one after a rollover at 70mph. Luckily everyone survived, but our interpretter was really banged up.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-29-2006, 9:31 AM
I doubt you've ever been anywhere near there.


Sure, why don't you tell us all about it. :rolleyes:

Hey Bruce....why dont you piss off? Who the hell do you think you are to question Brando's service to this country? If you dont have proof he is lying then I suggest you shut your mouth! To think we have some jerkoff stateside questioning the veracity of a soldiers service is disgusting. Why dont you tell us about YOURSELF Bruce.....what have you done for this country? Other than act like a jackass online of course.

Brando....I thank you for your service. I know I dont have to say it, but you dont have to prove crap to armchair pundits. Once again, thank you for your service..regardless of your personal political views one way or another.

brando
03-29-2006, 9:53 AM
Thanks! The support we got downrange, from everybody back home, was so appreciated and definitely helped keep us going. All my years in the military have been about sacrifice to one degree or another, but I've always felt it was worth it. If you travel around the world to 3rd World locales and hotspots and see the way people live, you quickly realize just how lucky we are here. Sure there are problems, but they should never overshadow the basic foundation of what America is to millions. Deciding to join the Army, vollunteer for the most challenging units, and doing my best to be a good soldier seemed more important than going to college. In the end, I have a huge sense of pride and more than anything, I feel like a true citizen of this great country who has earned his rights.

I'll step off the soapbox now ;)

Bruce
03-29-2006, 10:31 PM
Hey Bruce....why dont you piss off? Who the hell do you think you are to question Brando's service to this country? If you dont have proof he is lying then I suggest you shut your mouth! To think we have some jerkoff stateside questioning the veracity of a soldiers service is disgusting. Why dont you tell us about YOURSELF Bruce.....what have you done for this country? Other than act like a jackass online of course.

Thank you for keeping the discussion on such a polite, and mature level.:D

1) I said I didn't believe him. He may very well have been in the military, maybe not. Anybody can post a photo of a soldier, an AK, or whatever. Would you like to see a photo of my aircraft carrier? How about my nuclear submarine? My M-1 Abrahms tank? If you want to buy what he's selling then more power to you.

2) 26 years as an LEO (I'll save your fingers for you; "Prove it!":mad: )

As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed.

Sgt Raven
03-29-2006, 11:07 PM
As for Nissan Patrols, they aren't Pathfinders. In fact, I don't know what to compare them to but they are totally generic 4x4s and all over Iraq.

They, Datsun, imported some Nissan Patrols back in the '60s. They were Nissan's version of a Jeep, Toyota FJ40, Land Rover, Etc.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-30-2006, 2:06 AM
As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed.


EDITED****

Closed.

AntiBubba 2.1
03-30-2006, 4:20 PM
I hate to hijack this thread by taking the discussion back ON-TOPIC,but...:rolleyes:


While I'd like to see the "Safe Gun List" disappear entirely, I don't think it'll happen all at once. So I'd chip away at it in two ways:

First, the idea that a gun of any particular model that has not been changed or modified by the manufacturer, and is on the "Safe List", can suddenly be de-listed because the manufacturer doesn't want to cough up a few thousand more dollars after two years to have it re-listed. This is flat-out extortion.

Second, that every single variant of the same exact model must be "tested" separately is also crap. For those who are unaware, a S&W revolver (for example), blued, 6" barrel, fixed sights, in .357, is tested. A SS model is considered by the State to be a different gun and requiring of it's own testing. Give it adjustable sights-different gun. A 4" barrel-separate test. Every variant, whether or not it has any bearing on the functionality of the gun-REQUIRES A SEPARATE, EXPENSIVE TEST!!! And must go through the whole stupid routine again in two years!!! Or it is suddenly no longer safe. :mad: :mad: Each test is, what $3,000? How many variations of the variables I listed can you come up with? Now switch it to .38. Or 45 LC. To get every variation of every model tested for the California market would cost S&W millions every two years. So, of course, S&W, (and every other manufacturer) decides what will sell best in the State, and only offers those. And at that, we only see as much as we do because of the sheer number of CA gun owners.

And surplus? Well, the importer who brought in the Zastava probably doesn't think he'll make enough to cover his testing costs, so we won't see it here.


OK, that's it-I have to go break something. :mad:

brando
03-30-2006, 5:30 PM
You have my support on that one. That was definitely a wolf-in-sheeps-clothing law.

Jarhead4
03-30-2006, 6:34 PM
I guess common sense isn't so common. Also, I guess it is not a requirement for a law to be logical or practical.

Mute
03-31-2006, 7:20 AM
Of course the "approved" handgun list has nothing to do with safety. If it were, then why the exception for LEO? Does the laws of physics suddenly change when the gun is in law enforcement hands and become magically safe? Only an idiot can't see this law for what it really is.