HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Should we try to form an ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:02 PM

Should we try to form an alliance with gun dealers?

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:23 AM - Edit history (1)

I do not believe the Obama administration is pursuing the best strategy. Ultimately the best they can do is a minimal bill that perhaps outlaws future sales of large magazines. The law will be so weak as to not actually affect the biggest problems. Passing such a law is counter-productive because it will just create an opportunity later for the NRA to say "See we told you gun laws never work."

The better strategy is to go big, pushing for a major reform that actually would make us safer, including at least these elements:

- All sales must be through licensed dealers
- All sales require a 7-day waiting period and a thorough background check
- Manufacture, sale, or use outside a controlled shooting range of military-style weapons (Bushmaster etc) is a felony
- Existing owners can take their current military-style weapons to their grave, but cannot sell or transfer them. The government would offer a non-mandatory buy-back program
- Possession, manufacture, or sale of any magazine greater than 10 shots is a felony. They must be destroyed immediately with a government buy-back program.
- Every gun owner must maintain a current permit, including mandatory safety training by a licensed dealer every 4 years.

I believe most of us could agree more-or-less on that set of requirements, and in fact, many NRA members would agree with most of that because this actually STRENGTHENS their right to gun ownership. The fewer mass gun murders, the less likely society is to ban all firearms.

So here is the important thing. The Obama administration should actively recruit the GUN DEALER INDUSTRY. Screw the NRA. Win over the gun dealers and you have an effective force to knock off the NRA. Everything on my list above is potentially very good for gun dealers. It increases their revenue opportunities and it makes them much more respectable businesses in their community. You think a gun dealer would like a requirement that every gun owner has to regularly take a refresher course from a licensed gun dealer? Every sale has to go through the dealers? The dealers manage the government buy-back programs, just as car dealers managed cash-for-clunkers?

You bet gun dealers would buy into that as long as we fund it so they can make a fair profit for the job they do.

I would appreciate any thoughts about this. I am trying to think of the downsides, but I just don't see any. I think this is the only strategy that has a real chance of doing something really good for our society in the gun violence problem.

====

On edit, thread title changed to reflect the specific thread topic better.

65 replies, 3724 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 65 replies Author Time Post
Reply Should we try to form an alliance with gun dealers? (Original post)
BlueStreak Dec 2012 OP
gejohnston Dec 2012 #1
jeepnstein Dec 2012 #2
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #3
jeepnstein Dec 2012 #4
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #23
roninjedi Dec 2012 #36
PavePusher Dec 2012 #64
X_Digger Dec 2012 #27
doc03 Dec 2012 #34
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #5
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #7
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #10
gejohnston Dec 2012 #9
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #11
gejohnston Dec 2012 #14
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #25
gejohnston Dec 2012 #32
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #33
gejohnston Dec 2012 #41
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #47
DonP Dec 2012 #12
oldhippie Dec 2012 #60
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #61
oldhippie Dec 2012 #65
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #6
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #8
clffrdjk Dec 2012 #16
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #19
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #21
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #26
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #29
gejohnston Dec 2012 #38
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #49
gejohnston Dec 2012 #50
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #51
gejohnston Dec 2012 #52
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #54
gejohnston Dec 2012 #55
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #56
gejohnston Dec 2012 #57
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #59
ileus Dec 2012 #13
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #15
gejohnston Dec 2012 #18
doc03 Dec 2012 #31
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #35
doc03 Dec 2012 #40
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #44
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #62
virginia mountainman Dec 2012 #17
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #20
clffrdjk Dec 2012 #22
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #24
clffrdjk Dec 2012 #42
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #45
doc03 Dec 2012 #28
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #30
gejohnston Dec 2012 #37
doc03 Dec 2012 #39
gejohnston Dec 2012 #43
BlueStreak Dec 2012 #46
beevul Dec 2012 #53
kudzu22 Dec 2012 #48
beevul Dec 2012 #58
PavePusher Dec 2012 #63

Response to BlueStreak (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:18 PM

1. given current IT technology

how much through would the background checks already be as opposed to sitting around in an in basket or out basket? I think 15 is more reasonable than ten, esp for pistols.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:29 PM

2. Hmm... Let me think about that. Nope, not a chance.

Private sales should be run through NICS. We can't do that right now. I don't see why a dealer needs to be involved.

Waiting periods? Hate 'em. I don't think they do a thing. It's nothing but a feel-good measure. Make it three days and we'll talk.

Banning or severely restricting a firearm that already complies with the NFA and all the other myriad laws on the books? Nope. That's no answer at all.

Ten round limit? Sounds reasonable. As soon as you get every police department, Federal agency, and the military to adopt a ten round magazine, I'll be happy to comply. If it's such a great idea I'm sure they'll be happy to give up their outdated and unnecessary full capacity mags.

Gun Permits? Sure, right after you pass a mandatory class to register to vote every four years. Oh, and we might as well license computers, phones, internet access in general. Perhaps we could just bundle it all in a Citizenship test that would have to be taken every four years or you forfeit your Constitutional Rights?

All of the regulations you would impose simply increase the burden on people who already play by the rules. What would you do, if anything, about those people who already ignore the law with no consequence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeepnstein (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:46 PM

3. You are saying you have a right to the same hardware that cops and the military have?

No. I don't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:49 PM

4. Why not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:14 PM

23. Are you suggesting that the cops have special guns?

If so, you are mistaken. Cops have the guns everyone else has. However, they do tend to get a volume discount.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:03 PM

36. Actually, I think that actually *was* the intent of the 2nd Amendment

to allow the citizenry to serve as a ready reserve force and as a check on abuse of centralized power. We should probably be having a national debate on whether we think it's still relevant to have citizens prepared to defend themselves against external aggression and/or whether citizens should be able to check unlawful use of force by police and government.

I, personally, think it is still relevant but I'd like to se it debated, nonetheless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:17 PM

64. Why not? Why should police/military be a special class, elevated above the body of the Citizenry?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeepnstein (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:41 PM

27. Waiting periods don't actually work, either..

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

The findings of the underlying studies were inconsistent and or statistically insignificant. For there reasons, the reviewers were unable to determine the effectiveness of waiting periods laws as interventions aimed at reducing gun-related harms. In the judgment of a Community Guide expert panel, there is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of waiting period laws as public health interventions aimed at preventing gun-related violence and suicide
.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192946

Changes in rates of homicide and suicide for treatment and control states were not significantly different, except for firearm suicides among persons aged 55 years or older (−0.92 per 100,000; 95% confidence interval , −1.43 to −0.42)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeepnstein (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:58 PM

34. You think you should have the same capabilities as the police, federal agencies or military?

What you going to have a firefight with the military or what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:51 PM

5. I should have said, I am interested in comments from people who want to see sensible gun laws

Frankly I have no interest in hearing from folks who want to argue about every possible approach to gun safety.

I will only interact with people on this forum who have a genuine interest in moving forward as a nation to deal with this national calamity. My suggestion is not about the actual law, but rather about the strategy to involve gun dealers as part of the solution as a counterbalance to the NRA. If you don't want to talk about that idea, go take somebody else's topic off track.

I'd like to hear from people who have views about:

1) Are gun dealers smart enough to see this is in their interests?

2) Can we develop a force of gun dealers that can be trusted as much as we would trust, say, pharmacists?

3) If there were such a mobilization of gun dealers, how do you think this would stack up against the NRA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:07 PM

7. The gun dealers would not trust you.

They would correctly see your plan as mere incrementalism on the way to a total ban fo all guns. They will side with the NRA. After all, it is the NRA that has millions of members and it is members that buy guns. Your side buys very few, if any, guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:14 PM

10. Do you think that is true of all gun dealers?

From my reading of the "fast and furious" thing, that indicated there were some very legitimate gun dealers and some that were basically just gun runners.

Let's say there were 300 trustworthy dealers that bought into this program, wouldn't the others have to come along?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:12 PM

9. the NRA would mobize reactionary bloggers

like they did Jum Zumbo, Bill Ruger and Cooper Firearms. Plus, many would rightly be suspicious of your intent. Native Americans followed the same logic signing treaties with the US and Canadian governments. That didn't turn out very well for them, did it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:17 PM

11. I'm sure they would fight, but

it seems to me a large part of their membership is not on the same page with LaPierre.

It seems to me that many gun owners might be heavily influenced if their local gun dealer were engaged in the process and part of the solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:28 PM

14. probably not, but

that doesn't address the second part of my post and what GSC pointed out. It is not compromise. Today's reasonable will be tomorrow's extreme. When the NRA old guard supported the Gun Control Act (partly because it was a "least worst" and partly because some of the manufactures were for it because the import of foreign military surplus bolt actions were cutting into their profits) some felt that the "old guard" were giving away the store and put Wayne in power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:26 PM

25. I'm not going to debate the philosophy of a hypothetical.

We don't have to immediately win over every gun dealer. Indeed there are plenty that we should probably force out of business and replace with more honorable businessmen. What would be needed is a critical mass of the larger dealers around the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #25)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:55 PM

32. since all economies are demand based,

maybe carrot shouldn't be given to the dealers, but to the customers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #32)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:58 PM

33. What kind of carrot would you have offered to Adam Lanza to not have murdered all of those children?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:17 PM

41. the carrot would be for his mom to

keep her guns better secured while she slept, (especially after learning he figured out he was about to be committed and was pissed off about it, assuming she did), get him some help rather than let him sit in the basement playing Call of Duty all day. The guy in Norway spent most of his time playing WOW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #41)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:08 PM

47. What carrot would you have offered his mother to take better care of her weapons?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:25 PM

12. Don't forget what happened to S&W when they agreed with Clinton on the AWB

IIRC ... the British investment firm that bought the brand signed a "letter of intent" style document to abide by the spirit of the '94 AWB.

Dealers across the country took all their S&W firearms out of the display case and many of them shipped them back to the wholesalers.

Eventually that version of S&W went belly up and was repurchased by an American group and re-launched to the public with basically a letter of apology.

But it still took years and major investments in promotion (Jerry Mikulek etc.) to get their original reputation back.

I highly doubt that many, if any, dealers would go along with a program whose goal is ultimately eliminating their means of making a living.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:38 AM

60. How many gun dealers do you personally know?

And what has been their opinion as you discussed this with them?

I'm also interested in what part of the country you reside.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #60)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:46 PM

61. I'm in the Midwest.

I don't own any guns. I don't know any gun dealers personally. There is really just one big gun dealer here and he is held in rather low esteem by the general public. I'm sure there are lots of outer placers to buy guns (Wal*Mart, Dick's etc.).

Why do you ask?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #61)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:16 PM

65. Just curious ....

Your premise is a strategy to get gun dealers on board to support your plan. I was just curious as to whether you had talked to any gun dealers about this personally, or just came here to DU to raise the issue. I am not sure why you are asking other DUers about how this might work rather than asking some gun dealers.

I'm in deep red rural Texas. I know four FFLs personally. I'm pretty sure none of them would like your plan. But that's Texas. Cities may be different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:03 PM

6. What do you expect a waiting period to accomplish?

Magazines can be quickly swapped, in less then three seconds for most people, less than one second with training and practice. The VT killer and the Luby's killer used standard magazines for their pistols and swapped magazines when empty.

Military style refers to cosmetics of a gun. What do you care what a gun looks like?

You want gun owners to compromise. Compromise means each side gives up something. Your list has us gun owners doing all the giving and your side all the taking. What are you willing to give us that we don't already have?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:09 PM

8. I will only discuss the gun dealer angle here.

I'm not going to argue the particular elements of a potential law. There are plenty of threads about that.

If you want to have a discussion about the wisdom (or stupidity) of a strategic decision to align with dealers, I am more than happy to have that discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:32 PM

16. Any dealer

that publicly came out in support of your proposed regulations would go out of business faster than if planned parenthood announced that they think abortions should be illegal. If you want their help you will have to give them something that helps them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:50 PM

19. Colt has already been there, done that, got spanked by gun owners.

"During a 1998 Washington Post interview, CEO Ron Stewart stated that he would favor a federal permit system with training and testing for gun ownership. This led to a massive grass-roots boycott of Colt's products by gun stores and US gun owners." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt's_Manufacturing_Company#1980s.E2.80.931990s

Ruger offered to donate one dollar to the NRA for every gun sold this year. For the first time they sold over a million guns. IIRC they hit the million mark shortly before the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:12 PM

21. I am suggesting the administration organize an outreach

I understand that if one dealer or one manufacturer were to stand up, they would be a target. But if the administration could create some momentum behind an industry coalition, that's a whole different scenario.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:32 PM

26. Momentum to cut into their own profits?

They are in the business of making money, not happy feelings for gun banners.

There are companies that are designing guns that run counter to everything the gun-controllers want. Hi-Point makes a cheap, (Under $200) reliable, accurate .45 semi-auto pistol, and the same gun in a carbine version. Kel-Tec makes a shotgun with two magazine tubes. Siaga makes a shotgun on an AK-47 design, 20 round detachable magazine. (I want one in .410 bore. Great home defense gun for the wife.) They would love it if S&W, Ruger, Colt, etc suddenly jumped in bed with the gun banners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:50 PM

29. Come on. You're talking in circles now.

Everything I am proposing is INCREMENTAL income for gun dealers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:06 PM

38. until it happens again

because the real issues are not addressed. Today's reasonable will becomes tomorrow's extreme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:11 PM

49. That is why all rational gun owners should work with us NOW

With each new gun massacre everybody is just going to get more extreme. You have a situation today where most Americans are still in favor of a well-regulated right to keep well-regulated firearms, as long as this right is balanced with the rest of the public's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

In other words, we are never going to be more reasonable to work with than we are now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:49 PM

50. but the real issue isn't going to be addressed

This is not a uniquely US issue. None of these happen in a vacuum. There is a common characteristic of these guys in the US, school stabbers in China and Japan, school and mall shooters in Europe, and even the school bomber who killed even more kids than this guy did in 1927. If you look at all of these spree murderers around the world over time, they all have the same things in common. Mental illness, social stress during social and economic upheaval, social isolation.
Quite frankly, whether if we work with you or not, it won't affect the future. The next concession, will still be a concession not a compromise. Even with murder rates dropping there are cries of "increasing gun violence". That doesn't mean I don't think there should be changes in gun regulation, I have my own opinions. Some here have been reasonable, some are simply to push gun ownership out of the 99 percent. Microstamping and insurance for example. Many gun controllers I know tend to be kind of classist. It isn't so much about making the streets safer, than it is "those rednecks with Mossbergs scare me, but that nice man in tweeds and toting his Holland and Holland looks like a responsible gun owner." Most of the proposals by gun control advocates have nothing to do with what happened and half of the time is already current law. I'll post an OP of what I think should be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #50)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:13 PM

51. That rationalization will not work here

Everybody agrees there are multiple factors. but most people think the American approach to guns (culturally and legally) is damn effed up.

Of the 25 most recent mass gun attacks worldwide, 15 of them happened in the US and 10 happened in all of the other countries COMBINED.

We have a problem. If you can't admit that, you cannot be part of a solution, and you will not be happy with the solutions that are brought upon you. The rest of the world can deal with their gun problems. They don't need our help. They are all doing a lot better than us. Only 9 countries are doing worse and these are not places you would want to emulate (Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua, etc.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #51)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:34 PM

52. Never said it wasn't

I'm all for being part of the solution, just that your side is ignoring the other, and more relevant factors. I even made a list of what gun law changes I think should be made.
actually a lot more countries are doing worse than us. Certainly more than nine. sort by rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #52)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:09 AM

54. Actually no

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

There are 9 countries in the entire world with a higher rate of gun-related killings. These are, by name:

El Salvador
Jamaica
Honduras
Guatemala
Swaziland
Colombia
Brazil
Panama
Mexico

Which of those countries do you think is a good example for the US to follow?

The only first world country anywhere near the US gun death rate is Canada, and their rate is less than half ours. The next is Switzerland at one-third our rate, and it goes way down from there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #54)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:18 AM

55. I was talking about

all murder regardless of means. Switzerland's gun death rate is almost all suicides. If you look at the gun laws of Jamaica, Mexico, Brazil all would have a 99-100 Brady score. I care about all violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #55)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:53 AM

56. Moving the goalposts, eh?

Well, OK. Even though the subject is gun violence, if you want to look at murder rates, there are no first world countries with higher murder rates than the US unless you want to try to argue that Brazil is first world. If so, you have not been there.

To find a solid first world country on that list (assuming that we wouldn't put Turkey, Israel or Luxembourg on that list) we have to go all the way to Belgium or Canada, and they each have murder rates less than 1/3 of the US.

Sorry, I don't want to look to Guatemala, Sudan or Chad as examples of where the US should be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #56)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:12 AM

57. not moving the goal posts at all

just being consistent in my outlook. If you look at any of my old posts when gun death vs death regardless of weapon, I have always had the same outlook and replies. They are all equally dead and tragic. When you look at wealth inequality, we are closer to Mexico and Brazil than Europe. Been to Mexico, Philippines, Europe, Japan, South Korea. Even Saudi Arabia and Oman.
Yes Canada and Belgium does. Canada did when their federal laws were about the same or laxer than ours too.

So, what do you think of my ideas on gun regulations? So you don't have to look for the OP, here they are

-----each state develop a mechanism for private sellers to know who are doing business with, with incentives for complying and disincentives for not. Michigan's "clean bill of health" from the cops is a good example
---For ammo capacity, I would go with Bill Ruger's 15. OK, ten for rifles and leave pistols out of it. Have the government buy shit loads of ten or 15 rounders. Each 30 round mag you bring in during the grace period to the cops, post office, participating gun dealers, you get two legal mags plus 50 bucks. The mall ninja drums become NFA AOW, like pistol forward grips.
---Pistol magazines should be extend past the but of the grip. Pistols with magazine wells that are not in the grip, should be limited to whatever is common in Olympic/ISSF. One exception would be antiques like the Mauser C-96 and other curio and relics.
-----Since we have an 11 percent tax on guns and ammo as it is, add another four percent. Keep the first 11 percent going to Pitmann Roberston environmental projects (losing it is a deal breaker, I would tell Brady and NRA to fuck off) and use the extra four percent on guns, ammo, accessories, and video games toward public mental health. For the mental health, we should tax more stuff. Move Tile 2 transference taxes from general fund to mental health and Pittman Roberston as well.
---Regulate silencers like France, Norway, Finland, and New Zealand does.
---Revise NFA SBR restrictions to be more "common sense." I have no details, but regulating a single shot rifle with a 15 inch barrel the same as a machine gun is not "common sense."
---Repeal the Hughes Amendment
---The Lautenberg Amendment prohibits gun possession by those convicted of domestic violence. To that life time ban, I would also include juvenile convections of animal cruelty. For other violent misdemeanors, five years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #57)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:21 AM

59. As I have said, I am not commenting about specific regulations here

This thread is about the strategy of trying to form an alliance with gun dealers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:28 PM

13. Point one and two maybe....all others no.

Maybe The permit process for as long as I choose to keep my CHP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:32 PM

15. thoughts on your proposals.

 

- All sales must be through licensed dealers
- All sales require a 7-day waiting period and a thorough background check
- Manufacture, sale, or use outside a controlled shooting range of military-style weapons (Bushmaster etc) is a felony
- Existing owners can take their current military-style weapons to their grave, but cannot sell or transfer them. The government would offer a non-mandatory buy-back program
- Possession, manufacture, or sale of any magazine greater than 10 shots is a felony. They must be destroyed immediately with a government buy-back program.
- Every gun owner must maintain a current permit, including mandatory safety training by a licensed dealer every 4 years.


The only reason for gun sales to go through dealers is so that a background check can be performed at the point of sale. If I have already had a background check as part of my licensing, then I should be able to sell my firearms privately to any individual with a license, without the intervention of a middle man. If you wish to track the transfer, have a web site that private sellers can access to record the transaction and the License ID of the buyer. Simultaneously the seller can be notified that the buyer's License is still valid or not. There is no reason to involve the expense in time or money of involving a middle man.

This is going to be one of the things that is going to bite anti-gun folks in the butt. If you get the full licensing that you want, then it is going to cut out the entire rationale for a middle man for private gun sales. This means we should be able to buy guns through the internet provided my credentials can be provided.

I have no problem with waiting periods for people who do not currently own firearms. There is little need to have a waiting period if you already own firearms. Gun stores don't like waiting periods because it eliminates impulse buys.

I expect my children to be able to inherit my firearms, just as I have inherited generations of firearms before me.

I don't know how you will get people to comply on possession laws, especially magazines. There is no way to track who owns them. I expect a lot of civil disobedience to demands to turn them in.

I don't expect any confiscations in the coming legislation anyway.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:48 PM

18. from what I can tell,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:53 PM

31. "The only reason gun sales go through dealers is so that a background

check can be performed at the point of sale. If I have already had a background check as part of my licensing, then I should be able to sell my firearms privately to any individual with a license, without the intervention of a middle man."

What the heck is this license you are talking about? You don't receive a license when you buy a gun and nobody you sell it to has a license either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #31)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:01 PM

35. The OP proposed licensing for gun ownership. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #35)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:17 PM

40. The way the post was written it sounds like he claims some kind

of license already exists. Myself I agree you should have a background check and a license to own a gun. Do you think I should be able to sell a gun to a convicted murderer that was released from prison yesterday?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #40)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:36 PM

44. I agree.

 

Universal licensing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #40)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:49 PM

62. The "license" I was referring to would be equivalent to a background check

But these things should never be issued for life. They should be issued periodically, like driver's licenses. Circumstances change.

We could certainly set up government agencies to do all this processing. The point of this thread is to reach out to those who would normally be opponents and see if they could be part of the solution. I would have no problem with a well-regulated network of well-screened dealers processing these licenses and processing the firearms registrations instead of it going directly to a government agency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:39 PM

17. some minor problems...

- All sales must be through licensed dealers . They already are, if your talking about private transfers between individuals, how will you know who has what to begin with? Guns have been in production for hundreds of year, that cat was never in the bag.



- All sales require a 7-day waiting period and a thorough background check, What about people that already own guns? Whats the point of a waiting period other than to harassment a citizen? I could go along with that for a first time purchaser, BUT I already own several firearms, whats the point? The NICS check is very thorough, when states actually send in the information it needs.


- Manufacture, sale, or use outside a controlled shooting range of military-style weapons (Bushmaster etc) is a felony Ok, if a Bushmaster is a military weapon, why don't the military use it? You do realize that these are the most popular rifles in the US, and they have been for a decade?? Their are dozens of magazines (the newsstand type) that are dedicated to these rifles, and they have large subscriber bases. How many "gun control monthly's" do you know about?


- Existing owners can take their current military-style weapons to their grave, but cannot sell or transfer them. The government would offer a non-mandatory buy-back program How will the government know if someone sells or passes one on? They won't any registration is doomed to fail, because of mass non-compliance.


- Possession, manufacture, or sale of any magazine greater than 10 shots is a felony. They must be destroyed immediately with a government buy-back program. A magazine is a box with a spring, and can be made at home. Their are also millions in circulation. The Cat was never in the bag...


- Every gun owner must maintain a current permit, including mandatory safety training by a licensed dealer every 4 years. Ok, just like voting, or owning books?? remember you are talking about a civil liberty. If such a restriction is ok for one, it is ok for all of them..

What about the political ramifications of supporting such laws? remember 1994, those rifles where not nearly as popular then, as they are now and the original AW ban barely passed in a democratic house and senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:03 PM

20. I'm not here to debate the possible regulations. This is about the strategy of involving gun dealers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:13 PM

22. Ok, what is your carrot to get the dealers on board?

What are you giving up? What are they getting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clffrdjk (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:24 PM

24. Thank you. Here you go.

1) They get lots of customers into their shop because every transaction must be processed by a dealer.

2) They get fees for performing the registration and background checks. These would be nominal to the gun owner -- about he same as a fishing license. If the actual work deserved a bigger fee, the Federal Govt would supplement their processing fee behind the scenes. Not unlike Medicare payments.

3) Every owner would be required to take periodic safety training, which would be by fee to the dealer. Again, this should not be a prohibitive fee to the gun owners. If we need to supplement the payment to the dealer, I am very happy for the taxpayer to carry a burden there. That is a hell of a lot better than what we have today.

This is similar to the health care reform where the administration was able to persuade insurers to do what many people swore the insurers NEVER would do. But they are going along with lots of tougher regulations because they are assured of a more reliable stream of business in the long run. Same deal for gun dealers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:22 PM

42. straight to the pocketbook that is smart

That will get them to the table, but this is also where some regulation discussion comes into play. You have carrots for 2 regs the dealers will be held accountable for anything that comes out of the discussion by their costumers so you will need to be ready to give a little more for each new reg or at the very least be able to show them how it will help their bottom line.

now minor points just so you know the ground you stand on.
1) They get lots of customers into their shop because every transaction must be processed by a dealer.

As a costumer I only buy used when I have no other choice (who knows what the last guy put it through) costumer counts will go up but not drastically

2) They get fees for performing the registration and background checks. These would be nominal to the gun owner -- about he same as a fishing license. If the actual work deserved a bigger fee, the Federal Govt would supplement their processing fee behind the scenes. Not unlike Medicare payments.

The fee's at the store I frequent are $20 for rifles $35 for handguns. Under the current methods I fill out a page and a half of paper work and then he calls the FBI gives them my SS number and drivers license number call takes at most 5 minuets. He then files the paperwork and holds onto it for the required length of time. Depending how that process changes I see very little reason for the fee to increase or for a subsidy to be required.

3) Every owner would be required to take periodic safety training, which would be by fee to the dealer. Again, this should not be a prohibitive fee to the gun owners. If we need to supplement the payment to the dealer, I am very happy for the taxpayer to carry a burden there. That is a hell of a lot better than what we have today.

Odds are this training will require actual shooting. out of all the stores in my area only one has a range, so you will have his support but the others will see no upside. You will have to show them one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clffrdjk (Reply #42)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:58 PM

45. Regarding your points 1) and 3)

1) They get lots of customers into their shop because every transaction must be processed by a dealer.

As a costumer I only buy used when I have no other choice (who knows what the last guy put it through) costumer counts will go up but not drastically

If you have to go to a store to consummate a private transaction (an email sale, a gun show sale, or whatever) that is a significant benefit to the dealer. Any retail business loves to have reasons for customers to come into their store. Even if you don't buy a new gun, maybe you buy some ammo, accessories, or clothing. Maybe you join his amil list. Maybe he gives you a discount coupon for the next time you need to buy something. This is retailing 101.


3) Every owner would be required to take periodic safety training, which would be by fee to the dealer. Again, this should not be a prohibitive fee to the gun owners. If we need to supplement the payment to the dealer, I am very happy for the taxpayer to carry a burden there. That is a hell of a lot better than what we have today.

Odds are this training will require actual shooting. out of all the stores in my area only one has a range, so you will have his support but the others will see no upside. You will have to show them one.

Maybe some of those dealers go out of business. Maybe some add a shooting range in their store. I don't think you need a huge space to conduct safety training. That isn't the same thing as target practice. But if it is completely impractical for a gun dealer to accommodate that in his shop, maybe he strikes a deal with a local range for the store to conduct any written test and for the range to do the shooting portion. This could be combined with promotions to get the customer coming back to the range regularly.

It seems to me if people get off the bogus "second amendment" crap and start thinking constructively, there ought to be ways to find solutions we all could live with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:45 PM

28. I read through most of the comments and I see someone has come up with

some lame excuse of why nothing can be done, it won't work, it's too hard, the cops still have more firepower, etc.I other words plan on hearing about more 6 year olds being murdered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:53 PM

30. It would be nicer if we simply referred to 6-year-olds as

"collateral damage" from now on.

But again, this thread is not about the general question of whether we should improve our laws, or what exact improvements should be made in those laws. This thread is about the strategy of trying to gain the support of gun dealers to be a big part of the solution. I have not seen anything here that says we should not try to do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:04 PM

37. the real issue is mental health

and proper security in this case. Until the real issues are dealt with, no changes in gun or any other policy will make them magically end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:10 PM

39. It makes me sick to read through this crap. I own guns I hunt, target shoot,

support the 2nd Amendment. One person thinks he should be armed the same as police, FBI and the military. You can't put any regulations on private sales. You can't put a limit on magazine capacity because the existing ones are still out there. You can't make semi-autos illegal. They have a thousand arguments why nothing can be done. They hide in their cave until they see a post about guns then come out to argue against it. I never see any of them make a suggestion as to what CAN be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #39)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:33 PM

43. If I may?

Cops should have the same as us. They shouldn't have tanks and machine guns
Military can keep their stuff
each state develop a mechanism for private sellers to know who are doing business with, with incentives for complying and disincentives for not. Michigan's "clean bill of health" from the cops is a good example
you can put a limit on ammo capacity. I would go with Bill Ruger's 15. OK, ten for rifles and leave pistols out of it. Have the government buy shit loads of ten or 15 rounders. Each 30 round mag you bring in during the grace period to the cops, post office, participating gun dealers, you get two legal mags plus 50 bucks. The mall ninja drums become NFA AOW, like pistol forward grips.
Since we have an 11 percent tax on guns and ammo as it is, add another four percent. Keep the first 11 percent going to Pitmann Roberston environmental projects (losing it is a deal breaker, I would tell Brady and NRA to fuck off) and use the extra four percent on guns, ammo, accessories, and video games towards public mental health.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #39)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:07 PM

46. Thank you. Many of us are afraid of all gun owners

Some of us have a feeling that a certain amount of mental instability is required for one to feel so strongly about shooting things.

I know that isn't fair. I am simply pointing out the distrust goes two ways. Intellectually, I can tell myself that most (probably better than 90%) of gun owners are like you: responsible, reasonable, and no threat to me, my family or society in general. But the reality is that you want to be able to keep devices that can do great harm. The other 10% scare the hell out of me and I have no good way of knowing who is in the 90% and who is in the 10%.

It seems to me that the non-crazy gun owners really need to step up now and help find common ground.

I see a strong parallel with the religious fundies like Pat Robertson, Mike Huckabee, Reverand Phelps and people like that. Most Christians are not insane, evil people, but if the reasonable Christians don't stand up, then they are represented by the extremists. Same deal with gun ownership. (You can substitute "Muslims" for "Christians" and it is equally true.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #39)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:44 PM

53. Lots of things CAN be done.

But whenever something is suggested that doesn't trample rights or capitulate to something on the anti-gun lobbys wishlist, its rejected, even if it WOULD prevent a mass shooting in a school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:10 PM

48. Here's what I'd do

- Improve the NICS system. Allow flags for mental health issues that may not necessarily prevent a purchase but might delay it for further investigation.
- Allow private sellers to use NICS. Currently no private (non-dealer) sales are even allowed to use NICS even if they wanted to. I'd wager 99% of gun owners would refuse a sale to a prohibited person if they were allowed to make that determination.
- Improve access to mental health care resources. We passed PPACA, let's make some use of it.


Magazine capacity bans are as silly as Bloomberg's 32 oz soft drink ban. (Hello -- ever heard of two 16 oz drinks?). Semi-auto bans would affect about 80% of the weapons in private hands. That's a good way to stir up a lot of anger, and probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster. The Supreme Court pretty much said that RKBA is an individual right, and the type of weapons that can be owned are those consistent with militia service. A common rifle such as the AR-15 is not going to be deemed unfit for militia service. Similarly, I don't think an excise tax on guns or ammunition is going to fly, either.

The bottom line is, guns are not the problem. Guns in the hands of mentally disturbed people is a big problem. We should focus on keeping the two apart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:56 AM

58. A humble suggestion...

Don't insult the intelligence of people, by calling it something it isn't

That just makes the people who you're trying to get rallied to your side, trust you even less.


"Gun safety" is safe handling/operation of firearms.


What you're trying to do, is sell a bill of goods with a label thats meant to decieve.


People that actually give a shit about this issue will take the time to read the law, regardless of how warm and fuzzy you label it, and I double damn guarantee you that those very people will use it, to point out dishonesty to those that might be on the fence.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:14 PM

63. Point by point...

 

- All sales must be through licensed dealers
I could get on-board with this, if there was a set fee and no registration requirement for the seller/buyer.

- All sales require a 7-day waiting period and a thorough background check
Define "thorough background check" and explain why the current NICS system does not fulfill this.
Explain what the "waiting period" is supposed to accomplish, then present evidence that it has worked where applied.

- Manufacture, sale, or use outside a controlled shooting range of military-style weapons (Bushmaster etc) is a felony
NO.

- Existing owners can take their current military-style weapons to their grave, but cannot sell or transfer them. The government would offer a non-mandatory buy-back program
NO.

- Possession, manufacture, or sale of any magazine greater than 10 shots is a felony. They must be destroyed immediately with a government buy-back program.
NO.

- Every gun owner must maintain a current permit, including mandatory safety training by a licensed dealer every 4 years.
Only if I can see your First, Fourth, Thirteenth and Twenty-fourth Amendment Permits and proof of training.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread