How would you reform America's gun laws?

1. I though you asked about the constitutional constraints of initiative petitions, not based their subject matter.
2. I will just post and copy the following response to perdidochas. "Lets not get lost in that thicket.
Just reread the OP that I was responding to. It did not ask me whether the reforms required constitutional amendment subsequent to a legal challenge or whether they only required a statute. . It asked me what I wanted to do. I wanted states to decide, and I wanted my state to decide by passing them all. For the purposes of my reply, I presuppose, that all are made, one way or another, constitutional.

How is a whole different discussion.

 

And you don't want them to drive.

 

Here is how I'd alter gun laws.

1. Tax breaks for people who conceal carry as they have the potential to augment police.

2. Mandatory gun saftey for highschool graduates

3. Do away with gun free zones.

4. Prosecute people attempting to but guns illegally , we have their names, and addresses because they failed background checks.
5. Get Democrats and the media to stop lying about gun statistics

 

SSUUREE they will. You gunnies always get to me. Not EVERYBODY who owns a gun has a basement collection and a paid up lifetime subscription to Guns and Ammo along with Wayne LaPierre's number on speed dial. Your average gun owner is not going to uproot himself and his politics. He'll simply hide the gun or maybe even turn it in.. Otherwise he doesn't CARE.

 

Make Oregon Suck Even More

MOSEM!!!!!

 

Oregon is pretty cool, and the violent part of the far right know never to act up.

 

Not even the coastal region really. It's I-5 against the whole rest of the state.

 

Oregon was pretty cool, it's not anymore.
Unless you love environmental destruction and human sex trafficking.

 

You hope...

 

It's a sure thing, my friend. Americans overwhelmingly will obey the law.

 

Yup, especially gun owners.

 

First get rid of every single firearms law that had zero beneficial affect on stopping any murder of interest at the moment. Study the aspects/facts of these murders of current interest. Make informed not emotional choices after careful analysis of the factual data. Let the resulting (constitutionally acceptable) law be passed with the understanding that this won't stop people who desire to murder from murdering and then allow Mr. & Mrs. Joe and Josephine Citizen to keep and bear arms when they are out and about. They will do a better job with better results by acting in a more timely manner to a threat from an armed assailant than any constitutionally compliant law.

In sincere honesty, I just don't understand how the shooter in Texas wasn't shot by a Texan in the vicinity of Walmart, for goodness sake it's Texas (Remember the Alamo) we are talking about! Ohio allows open and concealed carry but I get that no one was armed there. In Ohio private business can refuse to honor a concealed handgun license, guessing that area did just that.

 

For similar reasons that a Ferrari costs more than a Volvo, and as a deterrent.

 

When have I advocated for required auto insurance? I haven't.

 

The SCOTUS has already ruled that mandatory gun safes are unconstitutional in Heller vs. DC, so, no, not all of the proposed laws are not constitutional and at least one has already been ruled unconstitutional.
Emphasis added to the quote below.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

 

Rifles are involved in much fewer harmful incidents than are pistols. Kind of like why the insurance on a F-150 is less than that of a Corvette.

 

Cars and guns are not good analogies.

Driving is a privilege, guns are a right..

Here is a legitimate question though. Had the writers of the constitution seen automibiles and realized how important cars were to become would there be the right to drive?

Hmmmm this gets me thinking. Current Democrats equate having a right means the right to have it provided by government.
When they say health care is a right. What they really mean is that government owes them healthcare.

By those terms. Because i have the right to keep and bear arms. I demand that the government supply me with an ar-15 and all the ammo i can use.

 

Not when it comes to gun registration, etc. Even those in extremely blue states aren't compliant.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankm...-register-their-assault-weapons/#227a8c12702f
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/po...s-registry-numbers-released-article-1.2267730

 

SCOTUS will make a turn on the appellate cases coming up the chain. Heller recognizes that SCOTUS has reserved the right to rule on gun cases, and a newer more consistently safer wave of rulings are coming. The NRA et al will be displeased.

 

Any more gun control laws is grounds for overthrowing the federal government.

 

1. Really? Even if true it would still cut down on others.

2. Surely most weapons in the US are bolt action rifles and shotguns?

3. Some massacres are spur of the moment

4. No, we used to 'jark' terrorist guns with micro-transmitters to track them.

5. That seems an awfully strange decision.

Please explain 6&7 precisely?

 

Going by overall attitudes to things like waiting periods etc I KNOW.

Gunnies are WAY shy of the actual support they think they have

Gunnies were always like hunters and target hobbyists, a sort of harmless demographic as long as nobody got hurt. You were hobbyists, like model train enthusiasts. Now you're model train enthusiasts who occasionally massacre whole groups of people and then think we're all going to overthrow the government to protect you. Yeh, right

 

Then you want some jerkwad kid to cripple your wife and family and you're totally stuck with the bill?

 

Seems to me thats why pistols would be more expensive to ensure, not less.

 

Not only are few hobbyists mass shooters, but few mass shooters are hobbyists. Most often they go on a shooting spree shortly after getting their gun.

The overlap between the two groups is, in scientific terms, anomolous.