[roving4s]

what do you guys say? If we could get this passed with some small editing and both sides agree I'd be for it.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/bruce-w-krafft/a-compromise-gun-control-bill-i-can-live-with/

[lklawson]

Nannied.

What's the bullet points?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

[tallbump]

That's a "change' I can get behind

Here you go Kirk


Repeal the Brady Bill and do away with the NICS system entirely. It was supposed to keep felons from getting firearms but has failed miserably. The solution isn’t to “tweak” the cumbersome and expensive background check process. The answer is to get rid of it entirely.

Repeal the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act limiting ownership of full-auto weapons to those made prior to 1986.
In accordance with the 1968 amendments to the National Firearms Act, there will be a 90-day amnesty registration period every year, from January 1st through April 1st (or February 29th on leap years). The ATF will have 30 days to process any NFA transaction. Failure to complete a transaction in 30 days will result in the refund of all fees to the transferees and issuance of a default registration letter stating that the NFA items in question are legally possessed even if they are not entered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.

Any pilot or aircraft crew member who is an honorably discharged veteran or possesses a permit to carry from any state will be authorized to carry a firearm while in the air in any manner they deem fit.

Any schoolteacher, school employee or school volunteer who is an honorably discharged veteran or possesses a permit to carry from any state is authorized to carry a firearm in any school in any manner they deem fit. Any school district which is found in violation of this law shall forfeit all federal funds for a period of 6 months (for a first offense) and not less than 1 year for subsequent offenses.

Repeal the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990.
Congress shall deem that Article IV Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution (commonly known as the full faith and credit clause) applies to state-issued permits to carry. Any state which fails to honor the permits of any other state shall forfeit all federal funds for a period of 6 months (for a first offense) and not less than 1 year for subsequent offenses.

In accordance with Coffin v. United States a person who is attacked in a place s/he has a right to be and who is not engaged in unlawful activity will have no duty to retreat and will have the right to meet force with force, including deadly force if s/he reasonably believes it is necessary in order to prevent death or great bodily harm to him/herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony and shall be presumed to have acted in self-defense until proven otherwise. Law enforcement may not arrest an individual for using deadly force unless they have probable cause to believe that the use of force was unlawful.

The definition of “sporting purposes” shall include all types of sport and competitive shooting and all “military style” and semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns are hereby deemed suitable for sport shooting.

Any firearm or firearm accessory made by a private individual for their personal use will be beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.

“High capacity” magazines will be defined as any ammunition feeding device designed to hold more than 150 rounds.

“Armor piercing” bullets will be defined as any round which, when fired from a pistol with a barrel of no more than 4 inches (not including recoil or sound suppressor) can pierce 1 inch of HY-100 steel (or its equivalent) at 200 yards.

Any business will have the right to exclude weapons from their premises and by doing so they accept strict liability for protecting their employees, customers and visitors.

[lklawson]

Thanks.

Well, I'm all for that, but I don't see any possible way that "both sides can agree" on it. It doesn't sound like "compromise" at all.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

[lcback]

Originally Posted by lklawson

Thanks.

Well, I'm all for that, but I don't see any possible way that "both sides can agree" on it. It doesn't sound like "compromise" at all.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

i agree i think all of us gun owners and advocated would be for it, how ever i think it lacks any type of compromise for the other side and therefore would never have a chance.

[GrumpyGator]

Any pilot or aircraft crew member who is an honorably discharged veteran or possesses a permit to carry from any state will be authorized to carry a firearm while in the air in any manner they deem fit.

Any schoolteacher, school employee or school volunteer who is an honorably discharged veteran or possesses a permit to carry from any state is authorized to carry a firearm in any school in any manner they deem fit. Any school district which is found in violation of this law shall forfeit all federal funds for a period of 6 months (for a first offense) and not less than 1 year for subsequent offenses.

These would make me a little nervous in their current form. Carrying for protection of myself or family is one thing. Carrying for protection while surrounded by hundreds of panicked children or teachers is another. I'm sure the 8 or 9 victims inadvertantly shot by police in NY a month or so ago would agree.

I agree making schools a gun friendly zone would make them less of a target, there just needs to be some type of formal training and certification to make it a reality. I'm thinking a CQB or IPDA type course to qualify for carrying on school campus.

The airline brings about a completely different set of problems. Yes, you have panicking people. But, you are also at 30,000+ ft. I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but I can't imagine a bullet hole through the bulkhead of a plane at high altitudes would be a good thing. Again, I don't think the standard CCW class would be sufficient training for Joe Public. There would have to be additional training and certification.

[lklawson]

Originally Posted by GrumpyGator

I agree making schools a gun friendly zone would make them less of a target, there just needs to be some type of formal training and certification to make it a reality. I'm thinking a CQB or IPDA type course to qualify for carrying on school campus.

According to Larry Correia, a noted expert on School Shootings, the mandatory training is something of a feel-good boondogle because, in his experience, people who are incompetent before training will be incompetent afterwards and people who are competent or want to be more competent will voluntarily seek out additional training.

The airline brings about a completely different set of problems. Yes, you have panicking people. But, you are also at 30,000+ ft. I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but I can't imagine a bullet hole through the bulkhead of a plane at high altitudes would be a good thing. Again, I don't think the standard CCW class would be sufficient training for Joe Public. There would have to be additional training and certification.

I remember this debate from right after 9/11. The only danger represented by firearms discharge on a plane, which would not be the same on a public bus or subway car, is the risk of perforating the skin. The danger there is that it might create a slow leak which could lead to hypoxia. But that is unlikely because it would be a slow leak which is 1) easily overcome by cabin pressurization systems and 2) gives lots of time to lower the plane to altitudes where there are enough bars to avoid hypoxia. The flight systems are not in any particular danger because of triple redundancy and explosive decompression is pretty much a myth.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

[GrumpyGator]

Originally Posted by lklawson

According to Larry Correia, a noted expert on School Shootings, the mandatory training is something of a feel-good boondogle because, in his experience, people who are incompetent before training will be incompetent afterwards and people who are competent or want to be more competent will voluntarily seek out additional training.

I remember this debate from right after 9/11. The only danger represented by firearms discharge on a plane, which would not be the same on a public bus or subway car, is the risk of perforating the skin. The danger there is that it might create a slow leak which could lead to hypoxia. But that is unlikely because it would be a slow leak which is 1) easily overcome by cabin pressurization systems and 2) gives lots of time to lower the plane to altitudes where there are enough bars to avoid hypoxia. The flight systems are not in any particular danger because of triple redundancy and explosive decompression is pretty much a myth.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Great, you just gave me more educational material to read. Thanks, I think.

[FlashBang]

Originally Posted by lklawson

I remember this debate from right after 9/11. The only danger represented by firearms discharge on a plane, which would not be the same on a public bus or subway car, is the risk of perforating the skin. The danger there is that it might create a slow leak which could lead to hypoxia. But that is unlikely because it would be a slow leak which is 1) easily overcome by cabin pressurization systems and 2) gives lots of time to lower the plane to altitudes where there are enough bars to avoid hypoxia. The flight systems are not in any particular danger because of triple redundancy and explosive decompression is pretty much a myth.

Nailed it Kirk.
Additionally, the rounds carried by Federal Air Marshal's are designed not to typically exit. They are specially constructed plastic frangible rounds. Even in a "miss" they will typically splatter on the inside of the airplane skin.

.

[lklawson]

It's a good read.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk