Skip to main content

View Diary: A Smarter Approach to Gun Control (246 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Just wondering how the RKBA members feel about (5+ / 0-)

    ... this.

    I notice it only has one rec and that's not from an RKBA member.

    •  I would support it, with one addition: (0+ / 0-)

      Reciprocity. Both of ownership and carry permits.

      No more having to stop my car before I drive into Maryland and do a bullet shuffle in order to avoid becoming a felon simply for daring to drive through the state with a weapon.

      •  Maybe the standards should be national. (6+ / 0-)

        That would eliminate this state-by-state mumbo-jumbo.

        •  Agreed. Vermont's? nt (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:15:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, if we follow the discussion between... (5+ / 0-)

            ... two RKBA members in this diary, it seems the state with the most lax conceal/carry rules would, de facto, be the one controlling what permitted holders could take from state to state.

            They don't want to be confined by a more restrictive state's laws.

            That doesn't seem equitable.

            •  Nope. But then again, I wouldn't be happy (0+ / 0-)

              with needing a permit to buy firearms either.

              PERFECT COMPROMISE! No one is happy!

              Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

              by KVoimakas on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:49:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, we are talking about the specific plan (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                ... here by your fellow RBKA member. In his suggested pla, you would need a permit to buy firearms.

                Our discussion is about reciprocity. If the conceal/carry permits are issued based on state standards, what are the rules when crossing state borders?

              •  WRT, permit to buy firearms, many places already (0+ / 0-)

                do require a permit to buy firearms.  Lets look at what we would be getting:

                No more NICS, and all the issues associated with it
                No waiting periods
                No more direct federal involvement except for behind the scenes with permit issuance and renewal
                No more form 4473
                No registration
                National carry without the current rigamarole

          •  KV, you and I would agree that this would be ideal (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            However, in all reality, I don't see this happening.

            I think that we do need some form of federal standard and that standard by definition must be minimal.  I also think that it needs to set maximal standards to rule out some of the outrageous things we've seen come from certain states.  States rights do need to apply, but the abuse needs to end.

            I think most responsible gun owners would agree that the 2nd should be the only permit we need.  Yet this isn't the system we have and we can't get there directly from where we are today, which is also a complete mess.  Most who carry guns in public have permits.  Hunters get permits.  

            One of the few options that I see that is truly workable is a permit system.  Such a system necessitates that it be shall issue, nominally priced, without excessive training standards, and addresses national carry.

            I suspect by this point that the courts would uphold the permit model as legal.  Those who won't get a permit would be the criminals, those who would be denied a gun anyway, and those who would never leave their property with it anyway.  I think that this is really the maximal reach we could ever achieve with a law.

            What I propose is that we do the background checks that seem to have wide support but simplify the system, simplify the enforcement, and remove a lot of the hassles.  It is a compromise.

      •  I am in agreement with you on this one (0+ / 0-)

        This was my fourth bullet item

        That permits be issued by the states and are accepted nationally.   When traveling in another state, the citizen is responsible for complying with that state’s laws.
        I initially had a clause about travel, much like there is today, but I removed it because I see it as an unnecessary complication.  If you have a permit, your good to go.  If you don't have a permit, you better get one if you plan to travel with it.
        •  And the ability to move anywhere in the nation (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          with your firearms. Nothing I currently own is legal in New York, for instance. Nothing.

          And I only own a shotgun and two pistols.

          •  I agree with you here too (0+ / 0-)

            I also think that this particular area requires some more discussion and will require some sort of legislative or judicial intervention.  For the time being I phrased it as:

            Determining what types of weapons and capacity are allowed within the state subject to compliance with Federal and Supreme Court rulings such as “in common use” that prohibit the categorical ban of weapons.
            I admit that I deliberately left some wiggle room here, but my intent is more or less to say that one state can't say you can't have a particular model that allowed in another state.  Areas where I could see some discussion involve whether or not you may carry a particular item concealed.  In either case, I don't think an outright or even effective (e.g. you can't transport it to a range) prohibition would be allowable.

            I realize some states won't like some of these provisions, but that is part of the nature of compromise.

      •  That is the argument for national standards (0+ / 0-)

        See my comment down-thread. National standards would simplify many things, aid enforcement and promote a more efficient system.

        So I suppose the NRA would NOT support it.

        What about my Daughter's future?

        by koNko on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 09:14:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Some level of national standard will be required (0+ / 0-)

          if for no other reason than only the federal govt has the ability to bind the states.  In developing such a standard it needs to be recognized that what works in one area will not work in another.  The country has way too much diversity.  This leaves two options, either the national standard is minimal, or it leaves room for modification.  Another thing that the national standard must do is eliminate abuse, like has been taking place in NY, IL, and CA.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site