Wednesday, January 23, 2013

The Sensible Role of "Gun Control"


The current hysteria surrounding "gun control" is ridiculous on both sides. President Obama really missed a huge opportunity with his current plan, which is neither well thought out or even well meaning. He should focus on a "No one is taking your guns" approach that emphasizes responsibility and punishes the lack of it. Meanwhile, the hysterical antics of the NRA in the wake not just of Sandy Hook but at least a half-dozen other high profile shooting sprees since, only serves to make them look churlish at best and insane at worst.

"Gun control" isn't about taking anyone's guns. No one should be thinking about taking guns. Neither should it be about "bad looking" guns or magazine capacity. Limiting capacity or restricting guns because of how they look is stupid. What difference does it make if a school yard of kids is slaughtered by a maniac with a cute "Hello Kitty" rifle with a dozen 10 round mags or an "assault gun" with a couple of 30s? Guns are made to kill people. Guns are made to swap out mags fast. Hell, my Sig even blows the mag out of the gun when I push the release so I don't even have to touch the empty one, just jam in the new one.

What needs to be done is this:

1) Control licensing. Because of the 2nd Amendment, if a person wants a gun and is qualified, he should be able to get a license, period. However, that licensing, like that of a car, needs to be predicated on certain requirements such as passing a background check, having passed a comprehensive written test and qualifying on a gun range with a pistol, rifle and shotgun. Those who can't pass the qualifier might be eligible for a "collector only" license that does not allow them to purchase ammunition. But if they pass those checks, then they SHOULD be given that license -- current laws give too much discretion to police chiefs.

By the way -- the current 209A restraining order laws need to be amended because they allow police to take your guns without due process. In the heat of the moment that should be ok...but it should expire, and you get your guns back, within (say) 30 days unless you fail a safety hearing. (That has to be managed too but I can't think of how -- since divorce courts are biased towards woman, why wouldn't the safety hearing also?)

2) Control liability -- require gun owners, on getting their license, to purchase a liability policy. This would be a high payout policy used to payoff various people in case the gun is used badly, is stolen or if the shooter, while shooting at a bad guy, kills or injures a good guy or damages property.

3) Storage -- require that gun owners purchase a gun safe, one that must be anchored securely to a premise and cannot be easily carried away. Make gun owners liable financially and criminally if their guns are stolen from a home or business and it can be shown that they were not stored properly. Require all gun dealers to sell guns with gun locks such as through-the-barrel wires. Trigger locks are just stupid and easily defeated. I think it would be a good idea to require a Gun Safe Certificate at the time of a gun purchase, but that might be seen as interfering with the 2nd Amendment.

4) Control transfer -- require that all gun transfers require that the transfer go through an FFL, that includes gifts to family and inheritance guns. Make the penalties for giving or selling the gun to another person a federal offense with high fine and/or prison sentence. The fine or prison sentence is required because you KNOW the first person to be caught doing something illegal in this regard is a kindly grand dad who is not going to be sent to jail. Nevertheless, he should then be forced to pay the fine.

5) Put a high tax on ammunition, even higher on certain kinds of ammunition. If you are going to be storing up 10,000 rounds of SS109 armor piercing rifle ammunition then the question becomes -- WHY? If you are storing up 12 gauge mortar rounds or flame thrower rounds, the questions becomes -- WHY? Nevertheless, if you want to do it -- ok. But is SHOULD cost you more to discourage sales even a little. High taxation would do that quite well.

These rules don't take guns of any kind, or even restrict their sales. But it does make the buyers and owners more responsible for the results of those purchases.

No comments:

Post a Comment