I think I just lost a friend over a discussion of guns in America. He was someone I've known for thirty years, but since he moved from California to a small town in the midwest he has become very uncritical about Republican ideas. He's a smart guy, but over the last decade I've seen him go from thoughtful examination of evidence to parroting Republican talking points. We used to be able to disagree politely and he'd actually give the same scrutiny to my evidence and assertions that I'd give to his, but once the conversation turned to weapons, that was all over. Any time I propose a piece of legislation that might address problems, he parrots the line,"there are laws on the books, and they aren't enforced."
Well indeed there are, and they aren't enforced because of the weakness of the ATF, which was deliberately engineered by Republicans. In my most recent email I explained what the Tiahrt amendment was, and asked if he supported its repeal and the appointment of a permanent director so the ATF could do it's job. It has been days and I have received no answer, this from someone who usually responds quickly. It could be that he is seriously considering the proposition and researching options, but based on the partisan tone of his last few messages I have my doubts.
More below the little orange dust cloud...
I mourn the loss of the friendship, because we were once close, but the conversation that led up to this was instructive. He did have some concerns that should be taken into account by progressives, among them how tighter gun laws might be used by crooked or overzealous cops and prosecutors to entrap citizens, and the necessity of a mechanism for anybody unjustly put on a restricted list to appeal their status. In response to his concerns, I compiled a list of the reforms I think are most important, and how they might be structured to allay the fears of law-abiding gun owners.
1. There must be mandatory background checks for all gun sales transactions, with violent felons, people under restraining orders, and those who have been judged by a court to have insufficient mental stability barred from buying weapons. Answers from this system must be simple affirmative or negative, without jeopardizing the privacy or financial information of either the requester or subject. Those who have been judged unfit to buy weapons may challenge their status once every three years. Sellers who do not require information and buyers who give fraudulent information will both receive mandatory prison time, and seller loses their firearms dealer license permanently, surrenders any other firearms they own, and are ineligible to own weapons for three years after they complete their jail time.
A system of review must be in place to resolve all claims of improper or accidental placement on a no-buy list, with all challenges mandated to be justified in writing within sixty days. If there is no response from the agency within that period, the classification as illegible to own firearms resolved in the appellant's favor - subject to the review board being staffed and funded so they may do their job. The review board would be appointed by the head of the ATF and would include retired judges and law enforcement personnel, and if there is no head of the ATF then the review board may not meet and no appeals will be heard. (The last two sentences make sure that unlike the no-fly list, there is a transparent way to have your inclusion on the list reviewed, and if the government can't provide a valid reason why you are on the list, you are off. The mention of funding and staffing is so the NRA and their toy congressmen can't just defund the review board and make all appeals of invalid status succeed.)
2. Mandatory prison terms for straw buyers, plus confiscation of all weapons owned by the straw buyer and all profits from acting as a straw buyer. Straw buyers lose the right to own firearms for five years after completion of their prison term.
3. Mandatory one-year jail time for any person who is ineligible to own weapons who is found to have them even if no violent crime is committed, with double time for ownership of high capacity magazines, bulletproof vests, weapons altered to give them a high rate of fire, or restricted weapons like RPG's and explosive rounds.
4. Remove the Tiahrt restrictions on the ATF which prevent the agency from identifying gun dealers who have broken existing laws, and which restrict ATF agents from visiting a gun seller's premises more than once a year. (As things are, if an ATF agent visits your gunshop you know you can flagrantly violate the law for 364 days.) Require all gun dealers to keep accurate inventory records and to make them available immediately when served with a warrant. Require all gun dealers to report to the local police and ATF the theft of any weapon from their custody within 24 hours of the discovery of the theft. (The only reason to not report a theft is if it did not occur, but covers an illegal sale.)
5. No new sales of high-capacity magazines, guns with a high rate of fire, or kits designed to give a machine gun-like rate of fire other than to law enforcement agencies. Those convicted of any felony when armed with a weapon fitted with a high capacity magazine or a weapon designed or altered to produce a high rate of fire will have five years of jail time added to their sentence.
6. Anyone who is barred from owning weapons is barred from being in a place primarily devoted to the use of weapons, such as a shooting range or gun store. The definition of shooting range is any facility that is licensed for discharge of weapons; the definition of gun store is any facility that gets more than fifty per cent of its revenue from combined gun and ammunition sales. (Definitions are included so a gun range or gun shop can't add a soda fountain and say they're a restaurant, or a tennis racquet and say they're a sporting goods store.) Facilities which are closed to people who have been barred from owning weapons must post a sign at all entrances announcing that entry by by people barred from owning weapons is prohibited. The penalty for establishments that do not post signs is $5000.00 for first offense, same for second offense with suspension of license for 30 days, same fine with mandatory revocation of license for third offense.
7. Anyone barred from owning weapons may not be in a vehicle where weapons are accessible. (This covers the gang maneuver of having someone with a clean record who is the "owner" of any firearms in the car in case they're pulled over - the "owner" gets a slap on the wrist while the rest of the people in the car would go to jail if s/he wasn't there.)
8. Anyone who deliberately entraps a person who is barred from owning weapons into being in violation without their knowledge or consent must serve at least one year of jail time and pay a $10,000.00 fine. This includes officers of the law and supervising officers who order the commission of an entrapment, and there is no judicial ability to waive or plea bargain on this offense. A prosecution on this charge must be instituted if a civil case or other criminal case determines that entrapment occurred. In cases where entrapment occurred under cover of authority, the agency responsible must pay the legal defense fees of the person who was a victim of entrapment. There shall be no penalty on a sanctioned person, monetary or otherwise, in any case where a person prohibited from owning firearms is ordered into a prohibited place by police or other law enforcement officials.
9. There shall be review for mitigating circumstances when a person barred from owning weapons must enter a prohibited place in an emergency situation - if someone who is prohibited from owning weapons assists in fighting a fire at a prohibited place, for instance, or is stranded where no other shelter is available.
The numbered items above are copied verbatim from an email I sent to him - but that he brushed off as replicating existing laws that are not enforced. I know there are people on DK who are very knowledgeable, whatever their position on the Second Amendment. I am interested in knowing first, whether I was correct that these proposals are actually not in the law as it now stands, and second, whether you think they should be. If you are going to refer to the specific language I use, please let me know which numbered item you refer to.
Thank you for your time and review, and though I am on and off the computer today will respond as I can.
PNE
"If you aren't confused, you don't understand the problem"