Survey: What "Reasonable Gun Law Reform" would/could you accept?

[gglass]

I choose #21

What part of "Shall not be infringed" is so hard for folks to understand?

 

[cobber]

No new laws. Repeal the old ones. Fin.

 

[iauffenberg]

21 now new laws look at all old laws

 

[Big Muddy]

#21 is the only option I see which meets the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
But, should the federal government choose to further restrict our 2nd Amendment liberties, we must demand that the State of Indiana nullify any resultant extra-legal/unconstitutional regulation of our rights- via interposition.
If you don't like the sound of that, I would suggest you take it up with Madison & Jefferson- whose words on the subject are very clear, and readily accessible.
(Or with Ron Paul!)

 

[finnegan]

Someone posted this in an identical thread on another forum. Interesting to see how different states deal with firearm possession and mental health issues.

Possession of a Firearm by the Mentally Ill

 

[rs1]

I vote would be for 21 but could live with the 10 round mag

 

[John Galt]

I believe "Reasonable Gun Law Reform" to be Constitutional (Federal and State) Carry with the emphasis on accountability. We don't cut peoples hands off or their tongues out because they MIGHT abuse their First Amendment rights, so why do we disarm innocent people in the face of such obvious evil among us? However, abuse the Natural Right to self defense and be punished accordingly. No reduced sentencing, no plea bargain, no time off for good behavior. Nothing. Do the crime and do the time. Also, to protect innocent people from being railroaded by a potential Liberal court system, all weapons trials will be subject to FIJA - Fully Informed Jury Association.
My .

 

[Titanium Man]

NONE OF THE ABOVE

I'm sorry.................did I yell?

I might go with the mental health issue............hang on.....let me ask my little friend on my shoulder.

No..............we're good with NONE OF THE ABOVE.......

 

[Kmcinnes]

NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA! No New, No Changes to existing!

 

[NathanJefferson]

I asked this on non gun specific forums before asking it on here to gauge the response of gun owners that didn't sign up for an obviously pro-gun stance first. So now that I've gotten some replies from them, I'll ask here. (NOTE: These are not my suggestions. I'm just compiling them as I see them pop up and gain traction on news sites, social media, etc. This list will also be an expanded list since the responders will most certainly be more well versed in firearms lingo)

1. Background checks include mental health problems
2. Total ban on magazines over 10 rounds.
3. 15 rounds?
4. 20 rounds?
5. 30 rounds?
6. Different capacity bans for rifles/ handguns/ shotguns?
7. Ban on aftermarket mags allowing more than factory intended capacity?
8. Ban on semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines?
9. Ban on semiautomatic handguns with detachable magazines?
10. Ban on pistol grips?
11. Ban on collaspable stocks?
12. Ban on bayonet lugs?
13. Ban on hollowpoint ammunition?
14. National reciprocity to own and carry, own and not carry, or no license to own but to carry w/ federally recognized standardized test?
15. National license to sell?
16. Ability to perform background check during private sale?
17. Mandatory background check for private sale?
18. Mandatory training on par with LEO to own?
19. ALL civilians, including LEO, have equal access to firearms provided equal background checks, training, and proficiency checks are met; including newly manufactured selective fire weapons and all NFA items.
20. Firearm insurance.
21. None of the above?
22. All of the above?



On other, non-gun specific websites, the vast majority favors #1, about half like #14, and a very surprising majority favor #19, all of which I'm also a fan of.

Thoughts?

I'm good with #1 - if written appropriately (which I doubt it would be). If you are taking SSRI's (which pretty much all these shooters have been) you might not need to have your hands on guns while you are on them.

#16 I'm good with. Having the ability to have a NICS check if you want, at your discretion is fine.

#17, I Might be agreeable to this if it were put something along the lines of the seller must perform a minimal amount of due diligence to be sure the buyer is able to own it, either see a LTCH or perform the no-records-kept available to all NICS check. It would mostly hinge on if a LTCH is valid and the NICS check retained any records, I'm vehemently against anything that tracks what you have.

Put these in with the repeal of the Hughes amendment and a national reciprocity for LTCH and we might be able to talk.

 

[Mosinowner]

#23 repeal all federal laws and regs restricting firearms

 

[EvilBlackGun]

On the band-wagon with ....

... #21. The Constitution may be amended, as it has been several times, but THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. So let's have the "#21-dash-Feinstein Amendment" where if she has HER own gun (and she does) then WE can have ours. She and other Congress-ninnies are NOT a special breed -- except for André of course! There is method and there is madness, and Social Engineers are ALL MAD for control. LET US, THE PEOPLE, SPEAK! Try to amend; let the people speak; sit down, shut up. End of problem. But remember Prohibition of booze!

 

[tom1025]

23. Repeal all federal gun laws.

This right here. Why should we have to compromise when law abiding citizens have done nothing wrong.

 

[Project972]

i still bank on the south.

 

[Raskolnikov]

21. A lot of people agree with #1, but I don't. I think that fear of losing one's Second Amendment rights will cause individuals to think twice about seeking mental health care. There are many responsible gun owners who have been treated for minor mental health problems (e.g. depression, anxiety). These issues can really impact a person's life, but in most cases, will not lead a person to harm himself or others with a firearm.

Some people are too mentally ill to possess a firearm. The laws we already have in place take care of that. The person deemed mentally deficient should be afforded the rights to due process--taking away one's rights should not be based on what a particular doctor thinks without the order of a court. And, once the mental health issue has been resolved, the patient should have their rights restored.

 

[dreich]

I would not change anything concerning gun laws.

 

[Sanguine Samurai]

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.<------


I don't read anything in the text about us having to compromise. Perhaps I am missing something. I choose #21

 

[Bartman]

Can I add to the list? I proposed a compromise on another forum. Any guns or magazines banned for use by citizens should be prohibited for use by any federal law enforcment agency, including the FBI, DEA, BATFE, DHS, and of course, the Secret Service. If their supposition is that the average citizen doesn't "need" these weapons or magazines then I don't see why those agencies need them either. After all, if assault weapons are banned then criminals won't have them, right?

 

[finnegan]

I like that. Make it apply to all civilians, LEO or not. See how eager they are then.

 

[AJMD429]

Either BAN ALL GUNS - EVERY ONE OF THEM - AND SEIZE THEM IMMEDIATELY, or at a MINIMUM, ban all the "sporting" ones - take all the fancy walnut-and-steel leverguns, pretty double shotguns, custom bolt-actions, and muzzleloaders.

Maybe the 79 million "gun owners" who sit on their butts and sell the others out because they happen to own arms more appropriate for "militia" use will get a clue that they need to learn what the Second Amendment means, and fight for it.

If they aren't going to ban everything, then I choose choice #21 - NONE OF THE ABOVE.