gun regs yay or nay???

[kidoggy]

saw this on another site and thought it might be fun to see who thinks what on the subject . for those who can't follow the directions below please try to keep it civil or address others in PM s if you must.

this is to see how people think gun laws SHOULD be, NOT how they interpret them now.


"Guns ownership is an inextricable part of public land hunting (unless we go 100% bow and arrow). As such, HT has had its fair share of "gun control good/gun control bad" arguments, but rarely does anyone take the extreme position that unlimited access to all weapons is OK, or that all guns should be banned. As with most things, the devil is in the details. The following is intended to get a sense how a fairly broad-based group of outdoorsman/woman (HuntTalk) view the various questions being bantered around various legislative bodies around the country in 2021.

I am asking that you do not debate your points, criticize the positions of other, call names, use pejorative labels like commie or facist, invoke your personal belief of what the founders intended or instruct SCOTUS on the proper reading of the 2A. If at all possible just answer YES or NO. If minor clarification or caveat for your answer is needed that is fine, and suggestions are welcome but please don't "argue your point".

If you feel compelled to argue these topics I just asked you not to address in this thread, please start you own thread or PM ."

So, here goes:

0. YES or NO, the government may limit my access to military weapons such as handgrenades, rocket launchers, tanks, Apache helicopters, etc.
1. YES or NO, current limits on automatic weapons should remain in place?
2. YES or NO, current persons ineligible to possess firearms should remin in place?
3. YES or NO, current dealer background check rules should remain in place?
4. YES or NO, current restricted areas, such as courts and schools should remain in place?
5. YES or NO, the current approach to background checks should be extended to cover all transfers between non-family members ("universal background checks")?
6. YES or NO, we should have a mandatory federal gun owner's registry to further enable "universal background checks"?
7. YES or NO, even intra-family transfers should be subject to "universal background checks"?
8. YES or NO, even lending weapons between friends/family at a range or while hunting should be subject to prior "universal background checks"?
9. YES or NO, if there is a delay in background check results should the current 3 day "free pass" rule be extended to 14 days?
10. YES or NO, in addition to our existing civil commitment laws, should there be additional "red flag" laws allowing for pre-adjudicated confiscation of firearms?
11. YES or NO, should all firearm purchases be subject to a 7 or 14 day waiting period?
12. YES or NO, online sales of firearms through FFLs should be banned?
13. YES or NO, online sales of ammunition directly to the home should be banned?
14. YES or NO, ownership of a gun should require pre-registration/permit?
15. YES or NO, purchase of ammunition should require pre-registration/permit or background check?
16. YES or NO, semi-auto rifles capable of accepting high capacity mags (>10) and having other functional "attributes associated with military assault rifles" should be banned?
17. YES or NO, all large capacity (>10 round) magazines for rifles, shotguns or handguns should be banned (not including traditional rimfire tube magazines)?
18. YES or NO, all firearms must be stored in a secure manner at all times when not immediately in one's possession?
19. YES or NO, in locations where the presence of minors is common or foreseeable, all firearms must be stored in a secure manner at all times when not immediately in one's possession?
20. YES or NO, all new firearms should be required to incorporate "smart gun lockouts" by 2030?
21. YES or NO, the firearms industry should be civilly liable for the harm caused by the unlawful use of their products by their customers?
22. YES or NO, there should be a wholesale repeal of "stand your ground" laws?
23. YES or NO, regulation should further limit parts or modifications, such as bump stocks or 80% lowers that are primarily sold to avoid other gun control regulations?
24. YES or NO, the right to carry a handgun on a "shall issue" basis should be universal across the 50 states?
25. YES or NO, the open carry of semi-automatic rifles in public areas such as streets, parks and stores should be unlawful?
26. YES or NO, suppressors should be removed from governace of the NFA and be sold like any other firearm accessory?
27. YES or NO, current limits on short barrelled shotguns should remain in place?
28. YES or NO, current limits on short barrelled rifles should remain in place?
29. YES or NO, gun ownership should be restrict below the age of 21 rather than 18?
30. YES or NO, gun purchases should be limited to one firearm per month?



I am pretty pro 2nd so I answered no to all but 24 and 26 got a yes. not sure I am understanding 24 correctly ?? I am pro open or concealed carry for any law abiding citizen.
#0 and 1 I would be open to some debate but all other answers are final

 

[nv-hunter]

Kid im with you but 24 needs a second part for constitutional carry.

 

[kidoggy]

Kid im with you but 24 needs a second part for constitutional carry.

24 is a bit unclear . in my mind ,so long as one has not been convicted of a violent crime thereby relinquishing their rights to carry it is OR maybe I should say SHOULD BE constitutional carry.
also ,it is my belief that "constitutional carry" should be changed .

I would be ok with those who own private land or private business to be able to say wether or not one could carry on THEIR land but believe any public land/offices/business should be legal for any who fit the "constitutional carry" guidelines under such amendment. I am sure many will disagree on this and other points. this is the purpose of the thread ......

common ground.

it does no good to argue , might as well try to understand others points of view , so that maybe one day a true " common sense" conversation can actually be achieved.

I will amend 24 to "constituitonal carry" so it is a bit more clear.

 

[JimP]

In my view there should be backgrounds checks on people purchasing a firearm. They should be able to run one that is capable of saying that a person is eligible or not in less than half a hour. For this to happen all criminal records are going to need to be in a central data base and not scattered over 50 states and a few thousand cities. If they can't do it in that time frame then the purchaser gets to take the firearm home. As for a back ground check between family members I'd say a big no. I have placed a few firearms on consignment at a gun shop just so that I don't have to worry about just who is buying them. I let the gun shop have the headaches of filling out forms and getting the back ground check.

I also don't see a need for a person to actually own a full automatic firearm. Perhaps the feds could reduce the fees and checks that are required now for a person to obtain a class 5 license, I think that is what the class is.

On suppressors they need to just make them legal with no extra fees or licensing. People have watched way too many cop shows where it shows a revolver with a suppressor being shot making a noise like they do. I doubt that I will own one but if you want to thread the barrel of your rifle and put one on then go ahead.

There should also be a national right to carry, it will never happen but it should happen.

Also back to back ground checks, if a person holds a concealed carry license then they have already gone through more of a back ground check than any other firearm purchaser ever will. So allow them to purchase the firearm on the spot with no more back ground checks.

 

[kidoggy]

In my view there should be backgrounds checks on people purchasing a firearm. They should be able to run one that is capable of saying that a person is eligible or not in less than half a hour. For this to happen all criminal records are going to need to be in a central data base and not scattered over 50 states and a few thousand cities. If they can't do it in that time frame then the purchaser gets to take the firearm home. As for a back ground check between family members I'd say a big no. I have placed a few firearms on consignment at a gun shop just so that I don't have to worry about just who is buying them. I let the gun shop have the headaches of filling out forms and getting the back ground check.

I also don't see a need for a person to actually own a full automatic firearm. Perhaps the feds could reduce the fees and checks that are required now for a person to obtain a class 5 license, I think that is what the class is.

On suppressors they need to just make them legal with no extra fees or licensing. People have watched way too many cop shows where it shows a revolver with a suppressor being shot making a noise like they do. I doubt that I will own one but if you want to thread the barrel of your rifle and put one on then go ahead.

There should also be a national right to carry, it will never happen but it should happen.

Also back to back ground checks, if a person holds a concealed carry license then they have already gone through more of a back ground check than any other firearm purchaser ever will. So allow them to purchase the firearm on the spot with no more back ground checks.

we disagree on much but don't think we are really incapable of coming together either . I think I at least understand your reasonings for your point of view, even if I don't agree with them . appreciate your input.

maybe as a compromise of sorts to the national background checks we could just have a national ID card confirming one is not a felon and thereby eligable to buy /carry???????????? maybe have it be renewable every 4 years or so?????? could/should also be a requirement for voting ?????????

I also know it will never be but it probably should.

in truth ,I would rather not have this but do acknowledge it would probably be needed if one made the compromise to the 2nd that stripped felons of right to carry.

 

[JimP]

The way thing are both sides need to compromise it is sad but it is a fact. The left will keep on chipping away at out rights to own firearms until they get what they want. I'm just glad that I won't see that day but I will see more and more restrictions placed on the ownership of them.
Just today Bidet announced what he wants to see in new restrictions. He wants a ban on what he calls "assault-weapons." Now just what is his definition is yet to be seen. He also wants a ban on high capacity magazines, and universal background checks, also he wants to make manufactures libel for the role their products play in violence. If he gets that last one you better stock up on your favorite adult beverage.

Out of the three that he announced I would accept the background checks and do away with the other two.

 

[dan maule]

The problem with compromising with these folks is that their goal is basically the elimination of the 2nd amendment rights. It will never stop, so regardless of intent, every little compromise is an inch closer to the elimination of right to own guns. You can only have compromise when both sides compromise. As soon as you compromise and give a little, they are drafting the next piece of legislation looking for further restrictions. True compromise is when both sides agree to a solution and stick to the agreement, not take what you won from the deal and immediately try to get another deal where you gain a little more. They are too dishonest to enter into compromise with and we keep falling for it over and over.

 

[kidoggy]

The way thing are both sides need to compromise it is sad but it is a fact. The left will keep on chipping away at out rights to own firearms until they get what they want. I'm just glad that I won't see that day but I will see more and more restrictions placed on the ownership of them.
Just today Bidet announced what he wants to see in new restrictions. He wants a ban on what he calls "assault-weapons." Now just what is his definition is yet to be seen. He also wants a ban on high capacity magazines, and universal background checks, also he wants to make manufactures libel for the role their products play in violence. If he gets that last one you better stock up on your favorite adult beverage.

Out of the three that he announced I would accept the background checks and do away with the other two.

I will if it's passed . I won't before that day. and I will never stop trying to get it reversed if it should pass.

the way things are today ,"compromise" means accept any ban attempt.
it is my belief we have compromised far to much already and should accept no more.

I wish I could understand the intellect behind these proposals. I really do . the thought process is just completely alien to me. which is the point of this thread...........

 

[nv-hunter]

My issue with background checks comez from the last year in Nevada and other states they just changed thw rulez send in the background check but the 3 days didn't start till they got to it. In Nevada it was 2 to 3 weeks after it was sent in.

 

[nv-hunter]

I like the idea of background checks but not for private party sales at a cost. All check should be free if charge if required under law. But private sales shouldn't require one unless the seller chooses to compete the sale that way.

 

[JimP]

The wait is the biggest thing that I have with background checks. If you live in a gun friendly state they may devote the resources to the checks, if not then you may have the weeks wait. The way that I look at it the wait is the problem, you would think that they could use the same resources that the police have to run a quick check. If something questionable comes up on that check then by all mean do a more though one.

The private sales one also gets me. In order to do it here in Colorado which is the law now you have to go to a dealer and not only pay for the background check but for his time also. That is one of the big reasons that when I sell a firearm I take it to a dealer and place it on consignment and pay the 15% fee that they charge. I am then completely out of the loop.

 

[RICMIC]

I am pr0-2nd amendment, and have been a NRA life member for 45 years. I carried a firearm for over 36 years as a marine or a police officer. In regards to carrying a firearm, I do have some concerns as to "open carry". I taught martial arts and police defensive tactics for years, and can take a gun away from anyone if I know they have it. Even an unskilled person with a 2x4 can do the same. Concealed carry is not an issue as long as the person is not legally prohibited from doing so.

 

[shootbrownelk]

Yes to 24-26 and no to all the rest.

 

[badgerbob]

I am pr0-2nd amendment, and have been a NRA life member for 45 years. I carried a firearm for over 36 years as a marine or a police officer. In regards to carrying a firearm, I do have some concerns as to "open carry". I taught martial arts and police defensive tactics for years, and can take a gun away from anyone if I know they have it. Even an unskilled person with a 2x4 can do the same. Concealed carry is not an issue as long as the person is not legally prohibited from doing so.

I agree. I was at a soccer game and a small gal was open carrying. At several points she placed herself in positions where the weapon could have been easily taken from her...Also she was completely unaware of her surroundings. People behind her, close to her sides. I watched and not one time did she check her surroundings. Her focus was on the game. Easy mark if anyone wanted it. Concealed and no one would have known..goes back to lack of proper training, in my opinion.

 

[kidoggy]

I agree. I was at a soccer game and a small gal was open carrying. At several points she placed herself in positions where the weapon could have been easily taken from her...Also she was completely unaware of her surroundings. People behind her, close to her sides. I watched and not one time did she check her surroundings. Her focus was on the game. Easy mark if anyone wanted it. Concealed and no one would have known..goes back to lack of proper training, in my opinion.

that's great but what would your answers be on the poll??????????

 

[idcwby]

I will if it's passed . I won't before that day. and I will never stop trying to get it reversed if it should pass.

the way things are today ,"compromise" means accept any ban attempt.
it is my belief we have compromised far to much already and should accept no more.

I wish I could understand the intellect behind these proposals. I really do . the thought process is just completely alien to me. which is the point of this thread...........

If the government removes all guns from the citizens, than they can basically do whatever they please with no fear that there will be consequences.

 

[idcwby]

0. YES or NO, the government may limit my access to military weapons such as handgrenades, rocket launchers, tanks, Apache helicopters, etc.
No
1. YES or NO, current limits on automatic weapons should remain in place?
No
2. YES or NO, current persons ineligible to possess firearms should remin in place?
This is a yes and no answer because if you have done something un-American to lose your right to vote etc. you shouldn’t be allowed to use the Second Amendment. This gets into a gray area for me.

3. YES or NO, current dealer background check rules should remain in place?
No
4. YES or NO, current restricted areas, such as courts and schools should remain in place?
No
5. YES or NO, the current approach to background checks should be extended to cover all transfers between non-family members ("universal background checks")?
No
6. YES or NO, we should have a mandatory federal gun owner's registry to further enable "universal background checks"?
No
7. YES or NO, even intra-family transfers should be subject to "universal background checks"?
No
8. YES or NO, even lending weapons between friends/family at a range or while hunting should be subject to prior "universal background checks"?
No
9. YES or NO, if there is a delay in background check results should the current 3 day "free pass" rule be extended to 14 days?
No
10. YES or NO, in addition to our existing civil commitment laws, should there be additional "red flag" laws allowing for pre-adjudicated confiscation of firearms?
No
11. YES or NO, should all firearm purchases be subject to a 7 or 14 day waiting period?
No
12. YES or NO, online sales of firearms through FFLs should be banned?
No
13. YES or NO, online sales of ammunition directly to the home should be banned?
No
14. YES or NO, ownership of a gun should require pre-registration/permit?
No
15. YES or NO, purchase of ammunition should require pre-registration/permit or background check?
No
16. YES or NO, semi-auto rifles capable of accepting high capacity mags (>10) and having other functional "attributes associated with military assault rifles" should be banned?
No
17. YES or NO, all large capacity (>10 round) magazines for rifles, shotguns or handguns should be banned (not including traditional rimfire tube magazines)?
No
18. YES or NO, all firearms must be stored in a secure manner at all times when not immediately in one's possession?
No
19. YES or NO, in locations where the presence of minors is common or foreseeable, all firearms must be stored in a secure manner at all times when not immediately in one's possession?
No
20. YES or NO, all new firearms should be required to incorporate "smart gun lockouts" by 2030?
No
21. YES or NO, the firearms industry should be civilly liable for the harm caused by the unlawful use of their products by their customers?
No
22. YES or NO, there should be a wholesale repeal of "stand your ground" laws?
No
23. YES or NO, regulation should further limit parts or modifications, such as bump stocks or 80% lowers that are primarily sold to avoid other gun control regulations?
No
24. YES or NO, the right to carry a handgun on a "shall issue" basis should be universal across the 50 states?
Yes
25. YES or NO, the open carry of semi-automatic rifles in public areas such as streets, parks and stores should be unlawful?
No
26. YES or NO, suppressors should be removed from governace of the NFA and be sold like any other firearm accessory?
YES
27. YES or NO, current limits on short barrelled shotguns should remain in place?
No
28. YES or NO, current limits on short barrelled rifles should remain in place?
No
29. YES or NO, gun ownership should be restrict below the age of 21 rather than 18?
No
30. YES or NO, gun purchases should be limited to one firearm per month?
No

 

[mallardsx2]

I am not giving up my guns. But I can live without an Apache helicopter equipt with rocket launchers....and I have not had the need for a hand grenade yet in life...lol

 

[kidoggy]

I am not giving up my guns. But I can live without an Apache helicopter equipt with rocket launchers....and I have not had the need for a hand grenade yet in life...lol

I agree and want neither but believe those who do should be able to purchase them if they so desire .we have laws in place to deal with those who do not use those items lawfully anyhow. if the government can own it any law abiding citizen should be able to also.

some think individuals can not be trusted . neither can any government that has ever existed!


apache helicopter would be a trip on a pig hunt though.

 

[kidoggy]

If the government removes all guns from the citizens, than they can basically do whatever they please with no fear that there will be consequences.

would that be any different then how they are now??????????????????????