Friday, January 11, 2013


I'm in the throes of flu and blogging about one of the most contentious political issues in our country.  What could go wrong?

I'll start by giving people an idea of where I'm coming from, and then I want to make a proposal that I think would address a lot of concerns on both sides while also pissing everyone off.  I submit this more as a discussion point than as a proposal that I think would seriously be implemented in the near future.

First, some of my views and assumptions, as well as criticisms of some common talking points:

1) "2nd Amendment advocates who think they need guns to protect against a hypothetical tyranny are delusional."  I disagree.  All political power and law ultimately comes down to force or the threat of it.  An armed populace has more power, is harder to oppress.  I acknowledge that the group who believes this (including me) intersects with people who believe that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Anti-Christ who wants to use the U.N. to implement a New World Order, but let's not generalize by the nuts.
2) "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."  I'm suggesting a ban in almost no cases, but I still want to say that this statement ignores that flooding a market with legal guns makes them readily available to an illegitimate market.  It's also an assertion that we're essentially incapable of affecting the availability of guns to criminals, and I don't think we're as impotent as all that.
3) "If liberals think we can't effectively control drugs, then why do they think we can succeed at controlling guns?"  A great question, one that I think has to do with a difference in who provides the demand for each.  I will assume that we are able to be at least somewhat effective (I mean, there are countries that have done this.  It can't be impossible.)
4) There is basically no evidence that gun control, education programs, or concealed carry laws have any discernible effect on gun violence.  More data is required.
5) One of the concerns of 2nd Amendment advocates is that there should not be a registry of all of their guns, so that a tyrannical government could not go door to door and round them up.
6) The crime rate among concealed carry holders is low, and the rate of gun crime is lower yet.  This isn't too surprising since concealed carry means registering with the state and submitting fingerprints in most places.  I suggest extending this model.
7) Long rifles are sufficient to defend against a tyrannical government.  (Imagine occupying Iraq.  Now imagine 10x the people and 20x the geographical area to secure.)
8) Current concealed carry laws are a tapestry of varying regulations that is honestly very annoying if you're trying to legally bring a firearm with you on a road trip.  I have literally had to stop the car at a state line and transfer my weapon from one location to another to meet the law.  Not to mention all that research if you're crossing a lot of states.  Ugh.
9) Rifles are rarely used in crimes.  This may change as the availability shifts, but lack of concealability is a major issue.
10) Many gun deaths are associated with a gun that is owned by someone in the household (suicide, domestic violence.)  I leave it to individuals to opt in or out of this risk.
11) Handguns create the lion's share of the problem.
12) Gun violence is mostly an urban issue.

In a nutshell, I propose almost no restrictions on long-rifles (what we have now) plus anonymity, I propose a registry for basically everything else similar to existing concealed carry requirements, closing the private seller loophole, and a federal (states must recognize) concealed carry law with more stringent requirements than current concealed carry regs.  I rely on the assumptions that people who are registering their weapons will be infrequent offenders, that handguns will become less available to the black market over time, and that long-rifles are a poor tool for urban crime.  Gun security requirements might decrease domestic shootings some, but owning a firearm will continue to be a risk factor.

A)  All sales, private or otherwise, must obtain a background check for the buyer through someone licensed to do that.
B) For long-rifle sales (not of concealable length, semi-automatic, capacity of 10-rounds or less), these queries shall be anonymized and no record kept of who the weapon was sold to after transferring possession.  This is to partially relieve registry concerns.  Requirements are 18+, basic background check, 3-day waiting.
C) For handguns and semi-automatic rifles (including "assault" and without restrictions to magazine capacity) 21+, background check, basic gun safety course certification, detailed registration (see below).
D) What I mean by detailed registration is:
      a.) Name, address, fingerprints, dna sample, a ballistic profile if that is a useful thing (I have no idea, I may have watched too much CSI here.), serial number of the weapon.
      b.) If the weapon is lost or stolen it must be reported within a reasonable timeframe, and there is a small to moderate civil fine regardless.  False reports carry criminal liability.  Knowingly failing to report carries criminal liability.
      c.) Reasonable precautions must be taken to guard the weapon against unauthorized users.  Failure to do so can result in modest criminal sanctions against the registered owner if the gun is used in a crime.  (But not if reasonable precautions have been taken, and also not if the weapon was reported lost/stolen before it was used in a crime.)
      d.) Household members can be authorized as a user if they meet the requirements to own such a weapon themselves.  Responsibility for safe-keeping of the weapon in this case is shared but not diminished, but a crime committed by an authorized user does not impart criminal liability onto anyone else.  An exception is also made for gun sharing during hunting, sportsmanship, at the shooting range, etc.
      e.) Sale of the weapon requires a change of registration and for the buyer to meet all requirements.
E) Optional anonymous buyback for anyone who does wish to register a weapon.
F) Automatic/burst weapons are banned.  (Like, actually banned, not "effectively banned.")  Mandatory buyback compensates the owner for the fair market cost of the gun (these weapons are very expensive.)  Nobody uses spray-N-pray, anyway.
G) Federal Concealed Carry Permit.  25+, evaluation for stability, detailed registration as above plus a more extensive course, one that would take a pure novice into competency with a weapon.  The course will be good for any weapon and the license will be "shall issue" and respected in all 50-states.
H) Firearms Trust.  A situation may arise where a person owns a weapon, perhaps through inheritance, that they are not qualified to possess. Such weapons may be placed into a trust for safe keeping, and the owner may sell or will or assign the weapon to someone else normally, or just keep it in trust until they are qualified to possess it.  Automatic weapons may be held in such trusts (if the owner is hopeful that the law will one day change, for example.)
I) Antiques and permanently disabled weapons are subject to basically no restrictions (or whatever it is exactly that we have now.)
J) Provisions for legal transport shall be made for people without concealed carry permits who are traveling to engage in hunting, sportsmanship, etc.
K)  No carry in public of any kind, with the exceptions of J), without the Federal Permit.


  1. Finally got around to reading this. I have to say that I do like a lot of your points. It seems you are speaking of a compromise in the middle of the issue and I personally believe that's where the answers lie. Both extremes are too much, but in the middle there is an obtainable reality.

    I did have one little question for clarity: on point J you mention provisions for legal transport. I keep seeing a bus full of hunters gathered together with a professional government driver taking them out to the woods. Am I way off?

  2. Haha, yes, I just mean their will be legal means for a person to carry firearms and ammunition in their personal vehicle even if it doesn't have a trunk separate from the passenger compartment. Trigger locks installed or in a locked case, something like that.

    1. Thanks for the clarity! Makes so much more sense now.

  3. I like a lot of your points. Not all of them, but then that's what compromise is about, isn't it? One of the biggest questions that I could see others raising is on the issue of states rights. This does sort of trample those...

  4. Thanks for reading. I agree with you, there is a states' rights problem here for some people. What do you like or not like, and would something like this be overall acceptable to you?