since9
Campaign Veteran
Reference:
Owens, B. (2016). Five Fast Gun Reforms President Trump Will Sign Into Law. Bearing Arms. Retrieved from: https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
These include (measure: my comments):
1. Ending gun-free zones on military bases: Given the extremely high dollar value of the various assets located on military bases, along with the potential damage even a single bullet can cause, I understand why some bases would need to have large perimeters where no one except military police and authorized military personnel would be able to approach to within firing range of the assets. On the other hand, I swore to support and defend our Constitution, including our Second Amendment's "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," including allowing everyone with authorized access to the base carry in accordance with our Second Amendment.
So, what's the solution? I think it depends on the asset/resource, but should always involve a perimeter beyond which no one enters without proper authorization. The military never had a problem arming aircrew and letting us carry firearms to/from the flightline when our mission required it. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the DoD allowing people with authorized access to base carrying firearms in accordance with our Second Amendment, provided they don't enter various perimeters without proper authorization.
While he's at it, he should end the ban on firearms at U.S. Post Offices and Postal Service Centers. The greatest danger to both postal workers and customers has historically come from within, rather than outside, and from what I understand, their psychological services have greatly improved.
2. National concealed carry reciprocity: If those who push for this require a national database, then absolutely NOT. Heck, we don't even allow a state database of those who are authorized to carry concealed here in Colorado. That information is kept at the lowest level possible i.e. each county sheriff's office. If for some reason another law enforcement agency needs to verify its authenticity, then they can call the local office and do so, and the phone number is printed right there on the back of the CHP (concealed handgun permit).
In the same vein, other law enforcement agencies outside the state of Colorado can darn well do the same thing. There's absolutely ZERO reason to create any sort of national database of CC permit holders.
In fact, this step wouldn't be necessary if politicians simply followed the Second Amendment and stopped infringing on our right to keep and bear arms.
3. Legalizing silencers: Whether to protect the ears of hunters, enthusiasts at the firing range, improving accuracy by increasing mass and reducing recoil, or law-abiding citizens defending life, limb and property against criminal activity, I'm all for this. Just remember, if passed, most people will still be shooting without silencers at the firing range. That and the fact that these days everyone knows precisely why the ban against silencers was enacted in the first place:
4. NICS background check reform: The background check system does NOT keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It just flat out doesn't, and all arguments to the contrary admit to self-denial the moment they open their mouths to the contrary. Citations involving, "11,271 criminals applied and were denied the right to purchase a firearm" don't mean squat when they turn around and acuire a firearm illegally a week later. In fact, according to a recent PBS investigation:
Given the above, WHY in the WORLD are we focusing on background checks so much? Apparently, they don't stop squat, except in one critical area, where they might (very slight chance) actually keep a firearm out of the hands of a mental patient. That only works, however, if the patient has already been identified, and in such a way that their rights haven't been jeopardized, that it, the individual really is an imminent threat to self or others.
5. Allow importation of collectible historical firearms: I'm all for it. It was an incredible crying shame when Obama nixed the importation of nearly one million M1 Garands. I agree with Representative Cynthia Lewis, WY, (R): "Legislation shouldn’t even be needed for U.S. citizens to purchase perfectly legal and regulated firearms, especially in this case, with storied, American-made rifles that are pieces of U.S. military history."
Owens, B. (2016). Five Fast Gun Reforms President Trump Will Sign Into Law. Bearing Arms. Retrieved from: https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
These include (measure: my comments):
1. Ending gun-free zones on military bases: Given the extremely high dollar value of the various assets located on military bases, along with the potential damage even a single bullet can cause, I understand why some bases would need to have large perimeters where no one except military police and authorized military personnel would be able to approach to within firing range of the assets. On the other hand, I swore to support and defend our Constitution, including our Second Amendment's "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," including allowing everyone with authorized access to the base carry in accordance with our Second Amendment.
So, what's the solution? I think it depends on the asset/resource, but should always involve a perimeter beyond which no one enters without proper authorization. The military never had a problem arming aircrew and letting us carry firearms to/from the flightline when our mission required it. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the DoD allowing people with authorized access to base carrying firearms in accordance with our Second Amendment, provided they don't enter various perimeters without proper authorization.
While he's at it, he should end the ban on firearms at U.S. Post Offices and Postal Service Centers. The greatest danger to both postal workers and customers has historically come from within, rather than outside, and from what I understand, their psychological services have greatly improved.
2. National concealed carry reciprocity: If those who push for this require a national database, then absolutely NOT. Heck, we don't even allow a state database of those who are authorized to carry concealed here in Colorado. That information is kept at the lowest level possible i.e. each county sheriff's office. If for some reason another law enforcement agency needs to verify its authenticity, then they can call the local office and do so, and the phone number is printed right there on the back of the CHP (concealed handgun permit).
In the same vein, other law enforcement agencies outside the state of Colorado can darn well do the same thing. There's absolutely ZERO reason to create any sort of national database of CC permit holders.
In fact, this step wouldn't be necessary if politicians simply followed the Second Amendment and stopped infringing on our right to keep and bear arms.
3. Legalizing silencers: Whether to protect the ears of hunters, enthusiasts at the firing range, improving accuracy by increasing mass and reducing recoil, or law-abiding citizens defending life, limb and property against criminal activity, I'm all for this. Just remember, if passed, most people will still be shooting without silencers at the firing range. That and the fact that these days everyone knows precisely why the ban against silencers was enacted in the first place:
Congressmen made a show of saying that the legislation was needed because of the St Valentine's Day Massacre. But this was mostly a smokescreen for other concerns. The massacre was nothing more than gangsters killing gangsters, and was more or a curiosity than a public concern. It took place four years before Congress reacted.
What Congress was really responding to was concerns by robber barons over the rise of labor unions. In several highly publicized incidents, coal miners had organized and fought back against the armed goons hired to keep them in line. In several of the incidents, the miners had gotten the better of the goons, and mine owners wanted to keep guns (especially military type guns) out of the hands of miners and other organized labor. But they didn't want an outright ban because they also wanted to make sure that their own hired thugs still had access to such weapons.
So Congress passed a law requiring a $200 "tax stamp" for all regulated weapons -- machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and suppressors, among other devices. The law enabled the very rich to still have access to these weapons, but kept them out of the hands of average Americans.
What Congress was really responding to was concerns by robber barons over the rise of labor unions. In several highly publicized incidents, coal miners had organized and fought back against the armed goons hired to keep them in line. In several of the incidents, the miners had gotten the better of the goons, and mine owners wanted to keep guns (especially military type guns) out of the hands of miners and other organized labor. But they didn't want an outright ban because they also wanted to make sure that their own hired thugs still had access to such weapons.
So Congress passed a law requiring a $200 "tax stamp" for all regulated weapons -- machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and suppressors, among other devices. The law enabled the very rich to still have access to these weapons, but kept them out of the hands of average Americans.
4. NICS background check reform: The background check system does NOT keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It just flat out doesn't, and all arguments to the contrary admit to self-denial the moment they open their mouths to the contrary. Citations involving, "11,271 criminals applied and were denied the right to purchase a firearm" don't mean squat when they turn around and acuire a firearm illegally a week later. In fact, according to a recent PBS investigation:
An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.
In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.
Another large source of guns used in crimes are unlicensed street dealers who either get their guns through illegal transactions with licensed dealers, straw purchases, or from gun thefts. These illegal dealers turn around and sell these illegally on the street. An additional way criminals gain access to guns is family and friends, either through sales, theft or as gifts.
In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.
Another large source of guns used in crimes are unlicensed street dealers who either get their guns through illegal transactions with licensed dealers, straw purchases, or from gun thefts. These illegal dealers turn around and sell these illegally on the street. An additional way criminals gain access to guns is family and friends, either through sales, theft or as gifts.
Given the above, WHY in the WORLD are we focusing on background checks so much? Apparently, they don't stop squat, except in one critical area, where they might (very slight chance) actually keep a firearm out of the hands of a mental patient. That only works, however, if the patient has already been identified, and in such a way that their rights haven't been jeopardized, that it, the individual really is an imminent threat to self or others.
5. Allow importation of collectible historical firearms: I'm all for it. It was an incredible crying shame when Obama nixed the importation of nearly one million M1 Garands. I agree with Representative Cynthia Lewis, WY, (R): "Legislation shouldn’t even be needed for U.S. citizens to purchase perfectly legal and regulated firearms, especially in this case, with storied, American-made rifles that are pieces of U.S. military history."
