Does this sound helpful, or like a possible solution to the gun violence issue?

[LostInSeattle]

Just want to say that every time I see a fireworks display, as I did last night, I can't help but think how much happier the world would be if we took the money and gunpowder we spend on arms and put it into weekly fireworks shows.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

1. Significantly more severe penalties for anyone caught in possession of an unlicensed, unregistered or illegal firearm. That goes for anyone caught possessing a legal, registered firearm that is registered to someone else (even if owner gave permission). I was thinking minimum $10,000 dollar fine and minimum 5 years in prison without possibility of early release. These would be felony charges.

Penalizing someone for legally carrying a firearm?

2. Anyone with a registered firearm agrees to pay a $5,000 fine should their firearm be lost or stolen and they report it to the police. If the gun is recovered by police and it was not reported lost or stolen, the owner pays a $20,000 fine and is permanently prohibited from purchasing or owning a firearm. If that firearm was used in the commission of a crime and not reported lost or stolen, the owner pays the $20,000 fine and is held criminally liable for the crime that was committed, which is also carries a mandatory 5 years in prison.​

Shouldn’t and won’t happen;
- punishing someone for being robbed.
- punishing someone for crimes committed with their firearm.

* States already have laws on the books requiring firearms owners to report lost or stolen firearms, including penalties for failing to properly secure firearms.

3. Anyone who lives in a household of a registered owner of a firearm, can use that firearm for purpose of self defense within that household, or within the boundaries of the property in the case of home ownership. This also applies in a motor vehicle where the registered owner is present.​

I believe this already applies, though there may be exceptions in some places for ex-felons living in the same household with lawful firearms owners.

Outside of the property or household, only the registered owner may publicly possess the firearm (see point #1).​

See my 1st comment.

 

[Elmo]

Should the 99.9 be punished for the irresponsibility of the .10? Moreover, should the 100 be punished before something even happens?

Are you suggesting that gun owners are just tossing their guns in the street to be picked up? Many of these are stolen when they were locked up in their houses or vehicles. But that seems to be a prevailing mentality, blame the person who had their gun stolen and seek to punish them.

Sure. Some of them were stolen despite being carefully locked away. And some were stolen because their owners were careless. And some were sold to criminals without any background check because the regulation for private sales is basically nonexistent. In many states the seller has no obligation to check anything about the buyer. It's a ****ing honor system.

But that is all beside the point. It is not about blaming gun owners, it is about reducing the misuse of guns. We have 400 million guns in this country. That means criminals will always be able to get a gun, no matter what kind of regulation we try to add. They can either steal or buy from an endless supply of gun owners. That is the key difference between this country, and those where gun control actually works. The number of guns must be reduced.

 

[LostInSeattle]

Stop right there. What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?

Define "infringed" as the term was understood in 1789.

The right to keep and bear arms should not require "licensing." That makes it a privilege and not a right.

What's the difference in your mind? Why can society put reasonable limitations on speech but not on gun ownership? Do you consider the right to bear arms as unlimited and unrestrictable?

 

[Elmo]

Just want to say that every time I see a fireworks display, as I did last night, I can't help but think how much happier the world would be if we took the money and gunpowder we spend on arms and put it into weekly fireworks shows.

I'm guessing you don't live in a region where huge destructive wildfires are an issue. Just saying

 

[LostInSeattle]

I'm guessing you don't live in a region where huge destructive wildfires are an issue. Just saying

Touché

 

[holbritter]

Yes, obviously these measures would help the situation. But as you can see from this thread, gun owners refuse to be registered. It is a necessary step to make any decent gun legislation enforceable, but it will never happen without a major shift in power.

Gun owner here.....I'm registered.

 

[holbritter]

While your penalties seem to be a bit draconian (which all too often will lead to charges being dropped, or never filed) I agree in principle with the idea of making so-called "responsible gun owners" actually responsible for their guns. Nothing is more infuriating than listening to arguments from people claiming they need a gun to protect their lives, homes and property and then discovering they can't even protect their own ****ing gun from being robbed!

Anyone who is so careless or irresponsible as to lose or have their gun stolen has demonstrated that they aren't fit to own one. And if the financial penalties are sever enough, it will help to assure that those idiots are not selling those weapons to a criminal black market, while claiming their gun was "stolen".

I find it WAY more infuriating that people possess illegal firearms, yet you think the suggested consequence is 'draconian'?
But it's more than ok to punish legal gun owners. That's what is wrong in this country.

 

[iguanaman]

Look, 80% of all guns are purchased through a licensed firearms dealer, and they are required to keep records of the weapon and the person who purchased it for 20 years. Instead of "registered" use the word "owner".

I just think there's a middle ground here where people can be allowed to own and possess a gun, and at the same time compel them to be more responsible gun owners and apply very stiff penalties for those possessing a gun they don't own. The second amendment gives people the right to have a gun, and I'm all for that. I don't want to make it difficult for law abiding people to buy a gun, I just think we can find a way to make it much more difficult for guns to end up in the wrong hands and make criminals, thugs and gang-bangers think twice about having a gun in the first place.

I'm just looking for a solution because as it stands, all I'm hearing is all or nothing, neither of which will accomplish anything.

.

Your idea would be a start if it also included penalties for legal buyers of guns that are later confiscated in crimes. Most all guns used in crimes are purchased legally and end up on the black market. This pipeline needs to stop, If you buy a gun and it ends up in the hands of a criminal there needs to be responsibility and there needs to be a limit on how many guns a person can claim as "stolen" too.

 

[Common Sense 1]

A ban on assault-rifle type guns unless you can show a legitimate need. Lifetime ban on owning guns after any criminal conviction based around gun crime, violence, or theft.

This would require some sort of database/licence, however that is not against anything in the 2nd amendment. If NRA nuts would stop being so paranoid.

Are there persons who cannot legally receive or possess firearms and/or ammunition?​

Yes, a person who —
(1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;
(2) Is a fugitive from justice;
(3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
(4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
(6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship;
(8) Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner issued after a hearing
at which notice was given to the person and at which the person had an opportunity to participate, and includes a finding that the person subject to the order represents a credible threat to the intimate partner or child or the intimate partner OR explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force against the partner; or
(9) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm or ammunition,is prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving firearms and ammunition.
A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year cannot lawfully ship, transport, or receive a firearm or ammunition. Such persons may continue to lawfully possess firearms and ammunition obtained prior to the indictment or information, but cannot do so once the conviction becomes final.
[18 U.S.C. 922(g) and ; 27 CFR 478.32]

Last Reviewed November 5, 2017

Are there persons who cannot legally receive or possess firearms and/or ammunition? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Yes, a person who — (1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year; (2) Is a fugitive from justice; (3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance; (4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a...

www.atf.gov

 

[Acadia]

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand.

Licensed, registered, fines, etc., are infringements.

Here is the only thing I'll support: Anyone committing a crime while in physical possession of a firearm gets the death penalty with very limited chance of appeal.

Yup, punishment. Harsh punishment. Including and especially Soros-owned DAs who sacrifice American lives for their Marxist ideology in service of their "Great Reset".

 

[iguanaman]

I find it WAY more infuriating that people possess illegal firearms, yet you think the suggested consequence is 'draconian'?
But it's more than ok to punish legal gun owners. That's what is wrong in this country.

What if the "illegal" firearm was purchased legally by someone else? Don't you think that person has some responsibility for where the gun ended up?

 

[Mach]

2A twats will reject any/all gun control, no matter if its sensible or would stop gun deaths, etc. They do not reason, they just support the widest possible interpretation of 2A and close their ears to the rest.

 

[Common Sense 1]

What part of "regulated" do you not understand ??

Don't think that you understand?

District of Columbia v. Heller​

District of Columbia v. Heller - SCOTUSblog

Certiorari Stage Opinion below Petition for certiorari Brief in response Petitioner's reply Amicus brief of the American Academy of Pediatrics (in support of petitioner) Amicus brief of New York, Hawaii, Illinois, and Maryland (in support of petitioner) Amicus brief of the Ame

www.scotusblog.com

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen​

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

 

[Chillfolks]

What if the "illegal" firearm was purchased legally by someone else? Don't you think that person has some responsibility for where the gun ended up?

Depends. If you buy a gun and knowingly give it to someone who is planning to use it in a crime then yes that person holds some responsibility. If I have my gun stolen and it’s used in a crime then no I don’t think the victim of a theft holds any responsibility.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Just to be clear I have not thought this out completely. It was just something that occurred to me so I thought I would throw it out there to hear the pros and cons from people on both sides of the gun issue.

1. Significantly more severe penalties for anyone caught in possession of an unlicensed, unregistered or illegal firearm. That goes for anyone caught possessing a legal, registered firearm that is registered to someone else (even if owner gave permission). I was thinking minimum $10,000 dollar fine and minimum 5 years in prison without possibility of early release. These would be felony charges.​

​

2. Anyone with a registered firearm agrees to pay a $5,000 fine should their firearm be lost or stolen and they report it to the police. If the gun is recovered by police and it was not reported lost or stolen, the owner pays a $20,000 fine and is permanently prohibited from purchasing or owning a firearm. If that firearm was used in the commission of a crime and not reported lost or stolen, the owner pays the $20,000 fine and is held criminally liable for the crime that was committed, which is also carries a mandatory 5 years in prison.​

​

3. Anyone who lives in a household of a registered owner of a firearm, can use that firearm for purpose of self defense within that household, or within the boundaries of the property in the case of home ownership. This also applies in a motor vehicle where the registered owner is present. Outside of the property or household, only the registered owner may publicly possess the firearm (see point #1). I'm sure there are other special circumstances that would apply, I just can't think of any at this time.​

I am pro second amendment, but I also believe strongly in people taking personal responsibility when it comes to gun ownership. I believe that if there were stiff fines and severe penalties for both irresponsible gun owners, as well as for people illegally possessing a firearm, it would go a long way keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those who would use them to hurt others.

I fully expect for this idea to have flaws, so please be respectful in your criticism.

.

We don't have gun registration, so this is all a nonstarter.

We do have car registation though, so let's try out those kinds of penalties for things like speeding and drunk driving. That might actually save lives, unlike your proposal.

 

[holbritter]

What if the "illegal" firearm was purchased legally by someone else? Don't you think that person has some responsibility for where the gun ended up?

Yes. I didn't say otherwise.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Need a nation wide program something like this one.

Project Exile
Project Exile is a federal program started in Richmond, Virginia in 1997. Project Exile shifted the prosecution of illegal technical gun possession offenses to federal court, where they carried a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in federal prison under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, rather than in state court. Note that federal law provides for a penalty of ten years in federal prison for being a "prohibited person", i.e., a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, as well as for falsifying information in order to obtain one, or furnishing a gun to a convicted felon.


I would increase prison time to 10 to 20 years! No parole, no early out.
Every gun crime goes to trial or pleads guilty. NO plea bargaining.

We need to make the criminal responsible for what they do!
There would be a drastic drop in criminal homicides and gun crimes.


Project Exile, U.S. Attorney's Office -- Eastern District of Virginia

Project Exile, U.S. Attorney's Office -- Eastern District of Virginia

 

[Chillfolks]

Just to be clear I have not thought this out completely. It was just something that occurred to me so I thought I would throw it out there to hear the pros and cons from people on both sides of the gun issue.

1. Significantly more severe penalties for anyone caught in possession of an unlicensed, unregistered or illegal firearm. That goes for anyone caught possessing a legal, registered firearm that is registered to someone else (even if owner gave permission). I was thinking minimum $10,000 dollar fine and minimum 5 years in prison without possibility of early release. These would be felony charges.​

​

2. Anyone with a registered firearm agrees to pay a $5,000 fine should their firearm be lost or stolen and they report it to the police. If the gun is recovered by police and it was not reported lost or stolen, the owner pays a $20,000 fine and is permanently prohibited from purchasing or owning a firearm. If that firearm was used in the commission of a crime and not reported lost or stolen, the owner pays the $20,000 fine and is held criminally liable for the crime that was committed, which is also carries a mandatory 5 years in prison.​

​

3. Anyone who lives in a household of a registered owner of a firearm, can use that firearm for purpose of self defense within that household, or within the boundaries of the property in the case of home ownership. This also applies in a motor vehicle where the registered owner is present. Outside of the property or household, only the registered owner may publicly possess the firearm (see point #1). I'm sure there are other special circumstances that would apply, I just can't think of any at this time.​

I am pro second amendment, but I also believe strongly in people taking personal responsibility when it comes to gun ownership. I believe that if there were stiff fines and severe penalties for both irresponsible gun owners, as well as for people illegally possessing a firearm, it would go a long way keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those who would use them to hurt others.

I fully expect for this idea to have flaws, so please be respectful in your criticism.

.

I don’t understand why anyone would purpose a fee for being the victim of crime. Your house is broken into and your possessions are stole , damn that sucks now pony up your victim of a crime fee. Punishment for the person who stole the gun is appropriate not for the victims.

 

[Elmo]

Gun owner here.....I'm registered.

Good, thank you. I misspoke earlier though. What I meant to say is that for any strategy like the one in the OP to work, there has to be registration of each firearm and a link to their legal owner. So when a gun is sold to a new person, responsibility for that gun legally shifts to the new owner. If it is used in a crime, the government can check who was the last legal owner. At the very least, this gives police a starting point to figure out how illegal guns are being trafficked, and would allow for better enforcement.

 

[iguanaman]

Need a nation wide program something like this one.

Project Exile
Project Exile is a federal program started in Richmond, Virginia in 1997. Project Exile shifted the prosecution of illegal technical gun possession offenses to federal court, where they carried a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in federal prison under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, rather than in state court. Note that federal law provides for a penalty of ten years in federal prison for being a "prohibited person", i.e., a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, as well as for falsifying information in order to obtain one, or furnishing a gun to a convicted felon.


I would increase prison time to 10 to 20 years! No parole, no early out.
Every gun crime goes to trial or pleads guilty. NO plea bargaining.

We need to make the criminal responsible for what they do!
There would be a drastic drop in criminal homicides and gun crimes.


Project Exile, U.S. Attorney's Office -- Eastern District of Virginia

Project Exile, U.S. Attorney's Office -- Eastern District of Virginia

Actually probably not. In France when they were beheading pickpockets they had trouble with pickpockets robbing those who came to watch the executions. Criminals never believe they will be caught. Getting them off the street is what reduces crime. The way to reduce the number of criminals with guns is to go after the legal purchasers that are supplying them. When you legally buy a gun you are responsible for it until you die or sell it to another legal purchaser. It really is not rocket science.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Actually probably not. In France when they were beheading pickpockets they had trouble with pickpockets robbing those who came to watch the executions. The way to reduce the number of criminals with guns is to go after the legal purchasers that are supplying them. When you legally buy a gun you are responsible for it until you die or sell it to another legal purchaser. It really is not rocket science.

Well we are not in France and it's got nothing to do with pickpockets.

I have no issue going after straw purchases! Throw them in jail and let them rot!

 

[Artymoon]

But that is all beside the point. It is not about blaming gun owners, it is about reducing the misuse of guns. We have 400 million guns in this country. That means criminals will always be able to get a gun, no matter what kind of regulation we try to add. They can either steal or buy from an endless supply of gun owners. That is the key difference between this country, and those where gun control actually works. The number of guns must be reduced.

There are likely more than 400 million guns in the U.S. and anywhere from 16-20k deaths (depended on the year you can find stats for) by homicide.

.0045% of guns are used to commit homicide.

Misuse is not the problem.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Just to be clear I have not thought this out completely. It was just something that occurred to me so I thought I would throw it out there to hear the pros and cons from people on both sides of the gun issue.

1. Significantly more severe penalties for anyone caught in possession of an unlicensed, unregistered or illegal firearm. That goes for anyone caught possessing a legal, registered firearm that is registered to someone else (even if owner gave permission). I was thinking minimum $10,000 dollar fine and minimum 5 years in prison without possibility of early release. These would be felony charges.​

​

2. Anyone with a registered firearm agrees to pay a $5,000 fine should their firearm be lost or stolen and they report it to the police. If the gun is recovered by police and it was not reported lost or stolen, the owner pays a $20,000 fine and is permanently prohibited from purchasing or owning a firearm. If that firearm was used in the commission of a crime and not reported lost or stolen, the owner pays the $20,000 fine and is held criminally liable for the crime that was committed, which is also carries a mandatory 5 years in prison.​

​

3. Anyone who lives in a household of a registered owner of a firearm, can use that firearm for purpose of self defense within that household, or within the boundaries of the property in the case of home ownership. This also applies in a motor vehicle where the registered owner is present. Outside of the property or household, only the registered owner may publicly possess the firearm (see point #1). I'm sure there are other special circumstances that would apply, I just can't think of any at this time.​

I am pro second amendment, but I also believe strongly in people taking personal responsibility when it comes to gun ownership. I believe that if there were stiff fines and severe penalties for both irresponsible gun owners, as well as for people illegally possessing a firearm, it would go a long way keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those who would use them to hurt others.

I fully expect for this idea to have flaws, so please be respectful in your criticism.

.

I would eliminate the first clause of #2, but the rest of it is doable.

 

[Glitch]

Look, 80% of all guns are purchased through a licensed firearms dealer, and they are required to keep records of the weapon and the person who purchased it for 20 years. Instead of "registered" use the word "owner".

I just think there's a middle ground here where people can be allowed to own and possess a gun, and at the same time compel them to be more responsible gun owners and apply very stiff penalties for those possessing a gun they don't own. The second amendment gives people the right to have a gun, and I'm all for that. I don't want to make it difficult for law abiding people to buy a gun, I just think we can find a way to make it much more difficult for guns to end up in the wrong hands and make criminals, thugs and gang-bangers think twice about having a gun in the first place.

I'm just looking for a solution because as it stands, all I'm hearing is all or nothing, neither of which will accomplish anything.

.

Requiring a government issued license to sell firearms also violates the US Constitution. The only reason Federal Firearms Licenses exist in the first place is because of the unconstitutional National Firearms Act of 1934. I have owned firearms since 1964, and I have never once purchased or sold a single firearm from anyone who holds an illegal FFL.

Anyone who thinks they can compromise their individual rights away doesn't believe in any individual right for anyone. Are you sure you are a conservative? Because you are expressing the position that leftist filth love to take, and leftist filth don't believe anyone has any rights.