What gun regulations would you pass? Here is your chance!

What would you change, why, and what do you thing the political and statistical impact to crime would be?

IE if you say ban pistols, what impact do you think that would have politically?

Here I'll go first.

1) I would legalize and tax all drugs. Thus destroying the cash market driving murder and a shit ton of violent crime. I would pass comprehensive health care that covers mental health care for people (not a 72 hour hold).
2) I would set a national standard for CCW. Legal instruction and training. 8 hour class, 200 round qualifier. Clean background. Wipe away local laws that interfere with legal carry. (NJ can no longer ban JHP rounds)
3) I would enforce the strict laws with mandatory minimums for use of a firearm in crime, if they do not exist at the federal level pass them.

Outcome:

Political win, people already do drugs (banned) and there would be a massive drop in violent crime as street crime driven by drugs would stop.
I can drive from NC to Vermont without 800 different laws, and carry legally. I vote for the people who accomplish these things.

Please be realistic!

I'm feeling silly on Friday.

:popcorn:

1) I would legalize and tax all drugs. Thus destroying the cash market driving murder and a shit ton of violent crime.

>>> Unless the taxes are low enough, and the regulations surrounding the purchase were not too invasive, I'd say legalize pot only. Raise taxes too high, or get too invasive with purchase requirements and the black market takes over.

I would pass comprehensive health care that covers mental health care for people (not a 72 hour hold).

>>> Wouldn't that require very high taxes to pay for it? Would those taxes be raised through exorbitantly high taxes on pot?

2) I would set a national standard for CCW. Legal instruction and training. 8 hour class, 200 round qualifier. Clean background. Wipe away local laws that interfere with legal carry. (NJ can no longer ban JHP rounds)

>>> I agree.

3) I would enforce the strict laws with mandatory minimums for use of a firearm in crime, if they do not exist at the federal level pass them.

>>> I agree

A reasonable tax would be paid by most. Not all of course. Go to walgreens, get your dope, tax is included.

I do think coke and other hard drugs should be legal or at least obtainable without going to the street. That street drives lots of crime.

I think pot will be legal first.

But we're talking about government here. Their idea of reasonable and my idea don't necessarily agree.

I paid a DOLLAR tax on a 6 pack today. I can afford that, but still it is offensive. But I dont have the time to go brew my own beer.

Just like you can make your own wine, beer, and liquor in personal / family quantities, you'd be able to grow your own supply as long as you're not the local distributor.

Prolly put a ding in the hydroponics industry, but that'd be more than offset by the revenue. :)

The only way to circumvent it would be to make your own ammo with your own lead. Because the NanoTags wouldn't be in the shells, but in the actual bullet lead. And the serial numbers would be matched to your firearms ID.

Also, a tax credit to reimburse you for the cost of any ammo that was used to bring-down game for food. The game warden or deer tagging authority would provide you with the receipt.

Require police stations to be equipped with gun lockers for citizens who want their guns and ammunition stored outside the home, whether long-term or while they're away on vacation. The cost to citizens should be comparable to that of renting a safe deposit box.

Slingshots and blow-guns should be legal in Massachusetts again for people over 18.

many people use mil surp ammo (556 nato and 9mm) because it is cheap. There are billions of rounds of this stuff sitting around.

How would I legally be able to reload 9mm that just barely makes the power floor to shoot competition? I can currently buy all the parts legally. Would someone be making custom tagged bullets for me?

But the law would have to be that bullets manufactured after a certain date must have it.

It is banned for waterfowl hunting in all 50 states, and is increasingly banned on fed lands where upland hunting bird hunting occurs. Recently, California banned the use of lead for high-powered rifle hunting due to alleged threats, via ingestion, to Cali Condors. In any event, I don't see the practical purpose of micro-stamping other than to raise the cost of ammo.

However, once you fire a bullet, you own it.

This would increase accountability of gun owners, and would give people less of an excuse to limit gun ownership.

In other words, if the bullets are registered, you don't have to be such a tight-ass about regulating who is buying what gun.

or do I need to go to an FFL to buy ammo. I shoot at least 6000 rounds a year in practice or competition. How does this impact me?

But I doubt if that would stand up in court. After the first court case where a cop's defense is that the round someone was shot with had been dug out of a berm, the whole "you own the bullet" concept would go out the window.

Besides, If I am using a .38 I can cast my own rounds, leaving neither a case nor a tagged slug. If the tags are in the metal, and I am doing bullets in quantity, removing the tags would likely be a small exercise in boredom, I can thing of at least three ways to get rid of them without much effort or equipment.

The whole concept is likely an attempt to put so many safeguards on ammo and firearms that the average person can no longer afford them.

Disorganized crime would buy bullets that were cast by organized crime.

The only people caught by this would be otherwise-law-abiding people committing crimes of passion.

I don't think that's going to work.

before that date.

That's what happened during the assault weapons ban with high capacity magazines (clips to the firearm illiterate).

Magazines that held more than 10 rounds were illegal if manufactured after a certain date. They were readily available during the ban, just expensive.

Your idea might pose a LARGE expense to shooters for no good reason (depending on the cost of the modified ammo). A criminal or a nut could still do a lot of mischief with a box of ammo that he bought before or after your ban. A shooter who practiced regularly for enjoyment of the sport, hunting or practicing to insure that he could use his firearm proficiently for self defense would suffer.

How would the plan handle people who have several firearms in the caliber of the ammo they purchased? I own six handguns that can fire .38/.357 ammo.

For your info, casting bullets and reloading is not a big deal, especially since only a small number of bullets would have to be made for criminal use.



As far as the necessary equipment and skill to reload ammo with your lead bullets again it's cheap and easy. This is all you really need, plus a plastic or rubber mallet and powder and primers. The cost is $33.98.



I started reloading with a Lee Loader and produced several thousand high quality .38 target loads before I decided to invest in a more expensive set up, a RCBS Rock Chucker press and associated equipment which you could buy from Amazon.com for $369.99.

I could buy one box of fifty .38 rounds and reload the cases as many as 30 times which would result in 1500 bullets. All I needed was powder and primers .


At first glance, your plan would look good to many people. In reality it would prove to be just another worthless "feel good" law.

You cannot possibly tag all ammo. Many people CAST their own bullets out of tire weights or ingots and tin/antimony.

Remember, criminals only need one magazine or cylinder of ammo to commit a crime.
Even if ammo were $5 apiece criminals would still be able commit gun crime cheaply.
However, your solution would rape police training budgets and destroy citizen's ability to sufficiently practice or engage in shooting sports.
But that ok, right? Because the root cause of gun crime is police and law abiding citizens practicing/competing...

Logic Fail.

However, if the technology were cheap enough that it cost only pennies per bullet, the price points would be moot.

And yes, criminals COULD cast their own bullets.

But how many tweekers who want to rob a gas station are going to go to the trouble?

But you do raise some good points.

How many tweakers make thier own meth.
It is certainly possible but most buy it from a supplier.

The same thing would happen with ammo. Even if "tagged" ammo were cheap, for the sake of LEO and law abiding citizens, black-market "untagged" ammo would exist at a slightly higher price. Lead 9mm bullets can be cast for as little as $0.03/bullet with nothing more than a pan, camp stove, and bullet mold (cheap) - a black market would certainly exist because it could be supplied without trace, cheaply, and easily.

several gun safes years ago at a scratch and dent sale and started renting out space in the safes to people. Rent was about the same as a safe-deposit box, multiple layers of security and a guarenteed enviroment, downside only available during business hours and they didn't store ammo.
If there is a gun safe distributor in your area then most likely they have scratch and dent safes available for significant discounts. I bought a double-door AM-Sec for around 50% retail all because of a scratch that was eaily fixed with a little automotive touch up paint. Later I bought a bank vault door and frame from a demolition contractor for $100.

i agree with your analysis.

he got tired of arresting the same people over and over. Was surprised to hear him say it. Took his time away from perusing car thieves.

some WA poltitician opine about our terrible economy, etc. when there is a SIMPLE solution

legalize it and TAX it.

fwiw, it's effectively decrim'd in many places (most cops i know rarely if ever even consider doing misdemeanor MJ cases).

but if we could tax it?

omg.

very simple. have a tax amount per 1/4 ounce. possess it with the tax, you are good to go.

possess w/o the tax, hefty fine.

you could buy tax stamps out of vending machines, etc.

i'm not sure we could SOLVE our economic woes, but we could SERIOUSLY help our economy

told me that if she catches someone with an ounce or less she makes them dump it and then grind it into the ground. She is of the same opinion as you and I suspect most of the street cops nationwide. As far as the hard drugs, I wouldn't go so far as to legalize them, I've seen and treated and also covered with sheets many a person who has overdosed on hard drugs.

treats plenty of gunshot victims and they are all poor kids, thugs or wannabes, or just wrong place people, wound up in crack bullshit in durham. Those are the guys who break into your house when you are home, car jack you, and kill each other over nothing. Crack and the associated "lifestyle" are a major issue.

Distributing coke through some channel without these guys involved would make things better. I don't know how, but would like to see that happen.

creates at minimum the suggestion that drug use is o.k., and may therefore contribute to increased drug usage. Not so sure I go along with that, but not sure how legalizing the harder drugs would be administered either. Having a good deal of experience with drug use
and rehab I can say that there doesn't seem to be any real consensus of opinion among the rehab pros on the issue.

One thing I know for sure is that cutting the cost of a drug increases consumption of that drug. (not rocket science, eh?) I was actually surprised at how long it took the heroin cartels to recognize that they had to cut cost and/or improve product quality to compete
with crack, ecstasy etc.

don't work, but stricter laws on illegal gun use do? Just asking?

low income communities are really impacted by this. Take a look at greenwich ct, telluride co, no gun crime. The use of drugs is a personally destructive choice.

My logic was that if you use a gun to commit a crime (like rape, or robbery) you are done. You serve 20 years.

committing robbery or rape are already damn near or more than 20 years. Has that slowed those crimes?

Just asking.

and people serve fractions of the time. And yes violent crime is on the way down.

Haven't some drug use gone down too?


Just asking

is not really improper contact with a minor or some 3rd degree bullshit. Pled down all the time. Make room for these assholes, let dope people go.

But yes, honest question.

in a polite way I'm just pointing out how ones logic can not be used in only one direction.

Hey serious questions about crime and guns, not so simple.

I find both sides of the gun issue have serious faults in their arguments. I'm in the middle and can't find compromise from either side. One side wants total bans and the other will not listen to any thing that might be reasonable if it conflicts with their strict ideology.

Which means that nobody involved is inclined to report any given incident to the authorities, and there's not much in the way of physical evidence. As a result, your average drug dealer can commit many, many violations before law enforcement even becomes aware of his activity.

By contrast, robbers and murderers leave behind victims who, alive or dead, tend to alert the authorities to the fact the offense took place.

The upshot is that your chances of being arrested, prosecuted and convicted for a single drug offense are significantly smaller than for a single serious violent offense. Which has something to do with why heavier sentencing has little effect on drug dealers; if they're caught at all, it's for one offense out of hundreds.

with maximum sentence without parole.

All the above in addition to whatever state and local courts might do.

Those who are anti-crime-victim and pro-criminal can either join me or side with criminals.

How much, 10% each for all of the new jails, prosecutors, courts and judges? Plea bargaining reduces all of those. So, we can not tax gun owners, just everyone else?

I love simple common sense solutions, until a closer look.

in the case of violent crimes they do not serve the interest of the people.

does not serve the interest of the people? I'm glad you think the criminal justice system is cut and dry, black and white. If it was we would not need juries to decide them. Once again, how are you going to pay for a 10 X increase in prosecutors, jails, judges and courts. Perhaps we could lay off more police to pay for it? We could fire every cop that brings a weak case to the prosecutor, but that'd be all of them.

of course all involved were poor and black. It should be used on bullshit check fraud, drug crimes, and prostitution. Not violent crime.

because of poor police work and incompetent assistant prosecutors. Juries only need a hint of doubt to question police conduct. Our system is set up to free 100 guilty before 1 innocent is convicted. While you may see one of those guilty go free, how many innocent do you see convicted?

violent felonies should be prosecuted, vigorously. Bullshit drug and prostitution trials and incarceration is a waste of time.

Real world is the reality.

Now if you want to combine fewer plea deals with spending more money on better screening of police and more spent on training and monitoring them. Better pay for prosecutors to attract better lawyers and spending more money on rehabilitation of those incarcerated, your plan may have some merit.

I think it would just as effective to look at ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. How to do that without violating the 2nd will be hard, but it is possible. Remember we can't violate the 4th, 5th or 6th Amendments just to protect the 2nd.

ie a hearing or petition to get the right back, then I see no problem with that law. The idea is to focus on what makes the hands want a gun to use in violent crime. that is root cause.

evil, perhaps those who are anti-RKBA will lead the charge to impose capital punishment upon anyone convicted of a a crime involving a firearm.

Pardon my encoding if it doesn't work for you.

need some cold saki to go along with.

That DOES look good!

Laws would only punish those that harm another person, or their property.

Consenting people can make contracts to do whatever they wish, so long as the interaction is free of duress.

Taxes would be eliminated, as they are nothing but legalized theft.



I know this isn't going to happen.

Then there are no "legalized thefts" in Somalia? Great place, but lots of illegal thefts going on with no government there. Who is going to enforce all of those contracts with no government because of no taxes? What police, prosecutors, jails, judges and courts are free. Taxes are the cost of civilization.

while ensuring their own bodyguards and henchmen are as well armed as possible, just as organized crime bosses have in this country (*coughSullivanlawcough*). The warlords also levy taxes (protection money, tariffs, and whatnot), just like the mafia did in this country. What they don't have is law, education, social infrastructure, or a tradition of protecting individual rights, IMO.

only private justices and extortion in place of taxes. At least with a government system there is chance of voting out the warlords.

I think anyone who misses that point needs to read our own Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The ad hoc warlord rule of Somalia has no interest whatsoever in protecting the rights of individuals, only the prerogatives of the de facto ruling class. Again, pretty much like the mafia did in this country.

You can say they are necessary, or even good, but you cannot deny they are theft.

Larceny, if I recall correctly, is: The taking of the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner thereof.

I work, and make money. That money is my property.

The government takes it.

At least PART of that money will go to something from which I will see no benefit, and may be outright opposed to, like killing people in far-off lands.

Match those facts to the element of larceny, and you will see they fit quite well.

4) Anytime someone buys or sells a gun they must send me $25.

5) Anytime someone buys or sells bullets they must send me 1 cent per bullet.

1. No background checks, I shouldn't have to prove I'm not a criminal to exercise my rights.

2. No permits if you can legally own it you can legally carry it.

3. No "duty to inform" when interacting W/ the police.

4. Owners of PRIVATE establisments (not open to the public) have the right to forbid carry on their property anf that's it.

........but as I mentioned in another post, I'm not sure about other drugs. I do believe that the "war on drugs" requires massive recalibration.

Would taxes collected from marijuana sale pay for added incarceration of felons using firearms in crime? I'm guessing it could.

I'm opposed to registration, favor background checks and believe that anyone with a clean record should be able to own any type of rifle.

Political impact of said changes? As some citizens begin to realize that they've been afraid of a non-existent bogeyman I believe that the political winds would improve for the party considered most responsible for instituting change.

Statistical impact to crime? Probably a continuation of the trend we've been seeing -- a gentle decline, possibly a more dramatic decline as long as crime-driving factors remain constant.