TheGreatBuzz

It shows why I was such a stickler on the "you don't have Obamacare. It's not a thing you can have." Point earlier.

The time line I'm pretty much totally against. I'm assuming in your world this would have to be tied to my vehicle. That's the only way a cop would know before walking up to my vehicle. The thought occurred to me that if it is a federal license then there would be a federal database. So the police could find out when running my ID. That's fine with me. But I'm totally against having to notify a state when I carry there for less than 30 days or so. I live on a border and routinely travel to nearby states. No way am I going to constantly be doing that notification. The length of the license would need to be tied to how invasive the check to get the license is. I'd be open to some sort of tiered system as discussed earlier. paying for it, I would consider a small fee for the license but it couldn't be more than $35 or so and that would have to include the mental and background checks, required training, and everything. The cost to exercise a right should not be born by the citizen. I liken it to charging a fee to vote. If you make it cost prohibitive, you will end up with only the well off being able to afford to exercise a right. I can afford it but many can't and I don't think that is right. I'd also be against any more increase in taxes on guns. It is taxed enough. Maybe look at how the current taxes are spent. Remember if this were all to be put in place, the only civilians with guns in public would be the people with these federal licenses. That means they would have had training, a background check, and mental health check. I believe that would cut down on gun deaths and that has been the whole point of this. Now currently I don't have to jump through near as many hoops to carry my weapon and I am agreeing to add a bunch of hoops. I believe I am the one giving up a good bit. if we could atually hammer out the basis of a decent agreement that I could sign off on, I would be more than willing to type it up and send it to my representatives. Now where it would go from there I can't say but I'm not just doing this for fun. I'd really push a deal that I could agree with.

I believe the justification is that by driving a car you are giving implied consent to a breathalyzer. That's why in most places you can refuse to blow but it's an automatic suspension of your license, even if it is later proven you weren't drunk. ***Note: I'm not a lawyer, this is just my laymans understanding. I am also. You don't have to have probable cause to interact with someone in the sense the police can walk up and ask you a question. Demanding an answer without probably cause I think is wrong (which is what a check point is doing in my opinion). I finally just got my case dismissed where an officer arrested me because I told him I didn't want to answer his questions until I spoke to a lawyer (I was a witness, not the suspect or victim). The judge ruled I still had the right. It cost me $3,000 to prove it though. In my opinion, the stop part is wrong also if you are demanding they answer. Again, I'm no lawyer though. I believe I have the right to say I don't want to speak with them and go on my merry way unless they arrest me. And if they do that, they should have probably cause. Just so I know we are still on the same sticking point, I'm stuck on the notification of when I cross a state line for more than 24 hours with my weapon and the officers getting notified by their computer every time they pull someone over with a license. You feel that by giving in to a nationwide CC license that would require some states that don't allow most people to have a weapon to now allow it if they passed the requirements, you are giving enough to make the part I am opposed to reasonable? Is that a pretty decent sum up of where we are at? Not trying to make an argument here, I'm legit trying to make sure I understand the current positions.

I agree we really don't know. And I'd be fine with some studies to try to get a better idea of the outcome. But I fear any study won't be non-biased. Like everything else today, the stats always get twisted to say what the party wants them to say. I will say I think I've given in a good bit from my side towards increasing gun control (and not saying you haven't from your side) but it sounds like we may be too far apart to come to an agreement. Good discussion though.

I agree with the first line. As for the second, I don't know you well enough to give great advice. I will say that if it were me, I'd look for a lever action wood stock rifle. To me, they are a very classic look. If you buy one new, they won't be as pretty but there are a lot of things you can do with them. A custom wood stock can look amazing for example. But by the time you get it the way I picture it in my head, you could easily be in the $2500 range. I don't know if that is what you had in mind. The lever actions though are usually more prevalent in big bore so that may be a no go for you. Are you open to the idea of a shotgun? That would open up your options a lot. We may be too far apart. I get that I would be adding the ability to license in NJ but how many states would actually see their rights restrict because they currently don't require a license to carry in public? Didn't want to quote the whole block but I thought these two lines were the most important. Right now it sounds like it's about an even balance (with the limited info we have) that permits don't effect crime rates either way. Now I'm proposing more stringent requirements for permits so I would assume that would mean better people with guns and you could see a net positive from it. Also, there would be a lot of people who could no longer carry a gun (unless they got a license) because their states currently don't require them to have a license. Once this proposed nationwide license goes into effect, they would either have to get one which would require training, or not carry. So again it should be a net positive.

4. I'm fine with that. I don't believe they need that info. Now if a state wants a duty to inform law, I could see that as reasonable. I can explain how that works for us permit holders if you'd like. But I believe a cop knowing that a person has a gun before they go to the car will only increase tensions before they even get there, especially with junior officers. 5. Maybe we are missing each other on how this federal license would work. In my mind, the Feds would set a standard. Anyone who has a license would be able to get state to state with it with no notification. All state licenses for civilians would become null and void. Some states would see their gun laws tighten and others would loosen due to this new across the board standard. This should be embraced by both sides because of this. Edit: someone asked earlier. I'd really like to see some stats on the numbers regarding gun crimes, gun violence, accidental shootings, etc for permit holders vs non- permit holders.

I'll admit I'm slightly scared of this. I'm also scared of heights. I just know that neither one are really justifiable fears.

I would say no since it is a constitutional right. But I would certainly allow someone to sue the shooter if that person was hurt/killed by a person who uses a gun in a dangerous manner. Someone mentioned a while back about requiring a person who carries a gun to have insurance. It was an interesting idea but I'd want to see the cost first. I have a problem charging people money to exercise a right. That's also why I support voter ID laws but think the government should bear the cost of providing those ID's.

Gotcha. I think that may be pushing it. Maybe they are responsible if a CCW permit holder is injured because they didn't have security, I could see that. But only the person who's right to carry was denied (which is legal because it's private properry) or their family could sue.

I'd be interested to see the actual number first. And also there is a gun show point I made above. I just wrote it all out. It's like 3 posts above. You didn't miss it. I just edited it. Sorry. Technical difficulties. Shoulda got a Glock 42 or 43. Love both of mine. Lighter with the Glock reliability. And so much more comfortable in my hand. I wouldn't mind the safe requirement but as you pointed it, it would be toothless. I honestly don't know the limits, if any, on large purchases of guns. I'll ask my local gun shop next time I'm there if I can order 20 and see what they say.

1. Totally agree. People are scared of what they don't know. And I would start reasonably young. Hopefully that would help cut down on the kids that find a gun and play with it and kill someone also. 2. I would consider that as long as no attempt is made to limit the number of guns a person could own. I'm very hesitant about this though and it would take a pretty big bargaining chip. 3. I agree it should be paid for by the government. Someone mentioned later a tiered gun license system. I could see paying money for a higher level license but a general carry license should be free as should the training and such. The level of intensity of training and mental checks would depend on how often I have to renew. 4. I agree. Though the fee should be lower I think. Same as what I said for #3. 5. I agree. 1. For a yearly license, I'm not going to give much except the most basic level of training and mental checks. 2. I think the government (state/federal) should bear at least the majority of the cost. 3. It already is. It would be a federal license but I'm fine with the state helping enforce it. 4. Disagree. I don think there is a need. They get a lot more info knowing if the driver has a criminal record. 5. Definitely against this. It would defeat the whole point of a federal CC license. (I'm also open to debate if conceal carry or open carry is better. I see good arguments for both.) 6. No problem here. This is kind of what I was getting at earlier. The numbers of deaths are similar. So why don't we do that? Again, that defeats the purpose of this federal license that's we proposed. If you were going to set this "visitation" requirement I wouldn't want it to be for less than 2 weeks or so. I'd be interested to see how many people that have already owned a gun and instead went and bought one to kill themselves spur of the moment. Like someone else said, make sure there is a problem before you try to fix it. My main issue with waiting is gun show type things. I go to a show and get a good deal, but then would have to go meet that dealer somewhere the next day, the deal isn't worth it anymore. are you looking antique or new? What's your budget? Do you care more about looks or do you want to drive nails at 200 yards also? It is now. It's one of the things that makes the whole states with repriprocity difficult. If I drive through 7 states with my gun, I have to make a notebook of all the different laws. This is one reason I'd like more of a federal, across the board set of laws. But currently each state decides regarding "duty to inform". I'm probably the closest to fitting this description that I know of on this site. And I don't think I'm too bad when it comes to some common sense rules. sorry for the late response. And sorry it somehow posted and I'm not editing my response. Don't know how that happened. one other thing I'd like to add is that I'm fine with a mental health check for gun ownership but there would need to be a quick, reasonable way to appeal and get it overturned. The fact that I had depression a few years ago when I had a lot of major issues come up at once shouldn't keep me from having a gun now. I was also smart enough to store my guns with a friend during that time.

You forgot that he is then going to call it Trumpcare

I'm going to go back and address the two people that broke down their ideas (kudos to them by the way) but I wanted to address this before I forget. Assuming you would need the license to walk in and buy a gun and walk out, it would take a few days at least to get that license. If you already have the license, then you probably already have a gun also so the cooling off period would be an inconvenience to way more people than it would save, right? Do you still think it would be needed after considering that?

That I can agree with. I should probably pull back from my "won't give in to any additional regulations" stance that Beal drove me to. It isn't fair to those are willing to have a meaningful discussion (which you appear to be). Just so I get where you are at on this, would you be willing to make it a nationwide law where a person could get a license to carry a concealed weapon in most places (that the state couldn't overrule) in exchange for requiring a reasonable training course and perhaps a short mental health screening at government expense? (I'm more just trying to get an idea where you are at with give and take regarding gun law)

Haha. That is pretty funny.

What link? And does that apply to everywhere? Is Buffalo Wild Wings need to have armed security since their policy prohibits weapons?

You were the one that brought up minors and accidental gun deaths so that is what I used. As for your last line, what number do you put on it since you think it is so easy. What number of children must die from something before action needs to be taken? EDIT: I believe the number of Drunk Driving deaths are about the same as gun violence so we can substitute that into the discussion if you'd like.

I'm not sure I even agree with this. This was the first incident of it's kinds. I don't think it's fair to expect armed security to be at every place that this could happen.

I know. I got those numbers from the CDC website. I just figured since there was so much outrage about guns and since drowning causes 10x as many deaths, there should be more outrage on that. Maybe licenses and mental exams before you can take your kids to a beach. Edit: Maybe we should start a Pool Control Debate thread. I bet it will have 10x the interest.

I can't put a hard number on it. Can you? What number would you put as the number of children deaths per year before an issue needs swift and decisive action? FYI: The number of children drowning per year is roughly 10 times the number of child deaths due to accidental discharge (roughly 700 per year). I guess we should have 10 times the outrage. BAN SWIMMING POOLS!!! Edit: Wow. That's about 2 children per day. Why don't they matter?

I wasn't trying to be snarky. I was asking because I wanted to ensure I was addressing what you were saying correctly. I agree the two are linked but anytime you increase the number of anything, the number of bad things that will happen because of it will go up. Like I said, if we increase the number of police, the number of police doing something bad is bound to go up. Simple statistics. That doesn't mean we shouldn't increase though because there are also benefits. As someone said (I believe it was you), the number of mass shootings is so low it is difficult to provide much analysis of them. Also, it is hard to prove the negative of how many shootings DIDN'T happen because it was a gun friendly zone. Again, not saying you are wrong. I'm saying we don't know. Also, you can look at Tshile's numbers above and see that it actually is a low number of children affected per capita. That doesn't mean they don't matter though.

I never said "a few" so I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to say. Not being nitpicky, just want to be clear on what you are saying. I believe we were talking about people with guns trying to stop someone else or themselves being killed. Accidental discharge is a different issue (often dealing with storing in a way that isn't smart).

I want to claim that we really don't know. The small number of good people being shot compared to the number of people that carry a gun shows me that the idiots are outliers. Now if we increase the number of people with guns then yes, the number of times it happens would also probably increase. But so may the number of bad guys that are stopped. Similarly, if we increase the number of police, we will also probably increase the number of "bad shoots" but would probably also stop more crimes. The increase in bad shoots shouldn't justify not having more police. Again we really don't know. But based off the current numbers, I feel okay with what we are at so far. The old Buzz would probably have agreed that there should be some level of training before a civilian can carry a gun in public. But being told enough times that I am a right-wing, gun loving, wanna-be hero has made me give up negotiations.

Not sure what you mean regarding using my family. My wife also carries a firearm. My mom doesn't because she doesn't like guns. The rest of my family does not live in as "gun-friendly" state as I do. Thanks for the one example. I assumed, maybe wrongly, that we were talking about vigilantes stopping mass shootings. Either way, here are some "good guy with a gun" stories for you to peruse from that right-wing rag, The Washington Times. http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/collection/good-guy-gun-stopped-bad-guy-gun/ I'm not trying to tit for tat you to death on this. The truth is that examples of good things and bad things happening can be found for almost any scenario. If you look back far enough in this thread, you will see that I was for some common sense gun reforms. But I have grown weary of others telling me that anything other than their way is wrong and how guns aren't needed and people that carry them are just wanna-be heroes. I quoted this because I think it is a very good point that deserves stressing. Where I live, it isn't uncommon for police response time to an armed robbery to be 20 minutes!! I'm sorry but I want to be able to at least have a chance at defending myself and not just becoming a statistic. I also am smart enough to spend a good amount of time at the range making sure I can actually hit a target (and for enjoyment). And I like your house fire analogy.

Depends on if it is being performed as a private sale or not. Since you said Dealer, yes it is governed by an FFL. Though not every transaction with an FFL has the same rules obviously. *Note: I am NOT an FFL holder and have no desire to be so my knowledge here is limited, though probably still higher than most. It's based off of conversations with friends who are FFL holders. For concrete answers, follow the link below. https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/conduct-business