if you could implement "common sense" gun laws

[GlockN'Roll]

Ahhhh... here we go. Still got some left!

Only liberal idiots push the "common sense" gun laws myth.

Somehow, we managed to go for decades without these unnecessary and ineffective laws,

that were all clearly designed to incrementally eviscerate this constitutional right.

No faster way to lose all credibility here, than floating the "common sense" gun law scam...

[Epaphroditus]

It's a self correcting issue. All those that do stupid things with guns get shot dead by the sensible folk with guns. Simple.

[blkoutdb]

If you have 3 or more kids your family should be given and trained how to use a crew served weapon for the good of your community

[The Gleam]

EVERY anti-2nd Amendment law on the books in California was once called a "common sense" law when just a wee little bill based on career-politician campaign quips making its way through the committees, Senate, Assembly, and then sat on the Governor's desk.

That essentially defines the problem, and as has been proven, none ever have imbued any common sense whatsoever.

[Thrashard340]

I am sure this has been discussed a million times. Just because you are a car enthusiast, doesn't mean you wouldn't support laws and regulations that keep the roads safe and minimise avoidable accidents, etc. it's where non drivers start spouting idiotic laws where problems start to occur.

So if YOU could implement reasonable "common sense" gun laws, what would they be?

1) Enhanced penalties for crimes committed with firearms.
2) Enhanced penalties for possessing stolen firearms.
3) Enhanced penalties for convicted gang members in possession of firearms.

These are common sense gun laws I can get behind...laws that anti gun Democrats refuse to support because their goal is to get criminals back on the streets.

[Ivan275]

So, the one thing that still bugs me is the background check. How do we prevent those who are criminals from obtaining guns if we do away with that?

By keeping criminals in jail or killing them.

You are afraid to let a criminal have a gun but not afraid they can easily get a bat, cross bow, knife, brick, gas can, sword, chemicals from homedepot that make poison gas when mixed or just regular poison, car, van.....

[RandyD]

The only reasonable restriction on firearms are keeping them out of the hands of violent felons, mentally unstable people, and non-citizens. We need a law that requires prosecutors to prosecute these people, no more prosecutorial discretion, and then then we need a nondiscretionary sentence that adds 20 years onto a sentence for using a firearm in the commission of a felony.

No more laws on registration, concealed carry, open carry, barrel lengths, firearm lengths, magazine capacity, assault weapon definitions, suppressors, automatic firearms.

Regarding use, there can be regulations limiting the use of a firearm, such as inside city limits and fair chase limitations when hunting.

[The Gleam]

Common sense gun law,
You use a gun in a crime, minimum 20 year additional sentence, no concurrent terms, consecutive.

Heavy jail terms for any gun used in a crime.

1) Enhanced penalties for crimes committed with firearms.

This seems to be a common reply in this thread, conveniently forgetting that California wishes to (and has) assigned this facet to many nominal "crimes" that would otherwise have been the equivalent of misdemeanors or infractions because they infringed on nobody else's existence, safety, property, or morals whatsoever.

Be careful what you wish for. Most politicians in California would like to see you become a prohibited person merely for not transporting your handgun properly in a locked case while on your way to the range.

Ex-felons who didn't commit a violent crime should be allowed to keep and bear arms. They paid for their crime and they should have the right to defend themselves and their family. If they went to prison for embezzlement and served their time, 2A is irrelevant. We don't take away a person's freedom of speech if they committed perjury; why should 2A be taken away?

Agree. Martha Stewart comes to mind. A prohibited person. I would not be the slightest bit concerned if Martha Stewart was sitting on a park-bench next to me with my full well-knowing she had a S&W Ladysmith ready to go in her purse.

[Thrashard340]

Be careful what you wish for. Most politicians in California would like to see you become a prohibited person merely for not transporting your handgun properly in a locked case while on your way to the range.

.

Yeah, I was a bit vague in my response. Totally agree with you that Cali politicians would find a way to twist this against law abiding gun owners. My intent was to call attention to the high percentage causes of "gun violence" (as Democrats like to pervert the terminlogy) i.e gang violence.

[NoHeavyHitter]

The only common sense gun law would be to require firearms safety training early on in grade school.

[71MUSTY]

I am sure this has been discussed a million times. Just because you are a car enthusiast, doesn't mean you wouldn't support laws and regulations that keep the roads safe and minimise avoidable accidents, etc. it's where non drivers start spouting idiotic laws where problems start to occur.

So if YOU could implement reasonable "common sense" gun laws, what would they be?

We already have the only reasonable Gun Control we need, It's called the Second Amendment and it's the government it controls.

[Milsurp Collector]

So, the one thing that still bugs me is the background check. How do we prevent those who are criminals from obtaining guns if we do away with that?

1. In 2019 NICS processed 28,369,750 background checks and approved 28,266,158 (99.7%) of them. You don't really think making law-abiding gun purchasers go through MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of completely unnecessary background checks really stops any prohibited person who really wants a gun from getting one, do you? Seriously? What a colossal and ineffective waste of time and money. One time at a gun show I had to go through and pay for 4 separate background checks on the same day, within the span of a few hours. Meanwhile, somewhere some prohibited persons were no doubt buying guns without going through any background checks. Background checks are a joke.

If someone becomes a prohibited person they should be issued a new driver's license or ID that says they are prohibited. When purchasing a firearm ID is presented. If the driver's license or ID says they are prohibited then no sale. Otherwise the sale proceeds. Takes less than a minute and costs nothing.

2. On the whole idea of "keeping guns out of the wrong hands": if some ex-felon is so dangerous that you can't trust them with a gun, why are they running around free? They should be locked up until they are deemed a minimal risk of re-offending. It's the only way to guarantee guns will be "kept out of the wrong hands". If someone commits a non-violent felony (perjury, embezzlement, fraud, drug possession, etc.) and they have served their sentence then they should not lose their 2nd Amendment rights at all. Otherwise their punishment never ends.

I have no problem with any of these felons owning a gun. Does anyone?

[five.five-six]

So, the one thing that still bugs me is the background check. How do we prevent those who are criminals from obtaining guns if we do away with that?

[BigPimping]

All gun laws are illegal. The 2nd amendment clearly states, "Shall not be infringed."

[BigPimping]

1. In 2019 NICS processed 28,369,750 background checks and approved 28,266,158 (99.7%) of them. You don't really think making law-abiding gun purchaser go through MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of completely unnecessary background checks really stops any prohibited person who really wants a gun from getting one, do you? Seriously? What a colossal and ineffective waste of time and money. One time at a gun show I had to go through and pay for 4 separate background checks on the same day, within the span of a few hours. Meanwhile, somewhere some prohibited persons were no doubt buying guns without going through any background checks. Background checks are a joke.

If someone becomes a prohibited person they should be issued a new driver's license or ID that says they are prohibited. When purchasing a firearm ID is presented. If the driver's license or ID says they are prohibited then no sale. Otherwise the sale proceeds. Takes less than a minute and costs nothing.

2. On the whole idea of "keeping guns out of the wrong hands": if some ex-felon is so dangerous that you can't trust them with a gun, why are they running around free? They should be locked until they are deemed a minimal risk of re-offending. It's the only way to guarantee guns will be "kept out of the wrong hands". If someone commits a non-violent felony (perjury, embezzlement, fraud, drug possession, etc.) and they have served their sentence then they should not lose their 2nd Amendment rights at all. Otherwise their punishment never ends.

I have no problem with any of these felons owning a gun. Does anyone?

Martha Stewart gets my tail wagging. She can hand feed me anytime.