Gun Safety Laws

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
49,976
3,595
113
Washington DC
Here's my proposal. A stand-alone law saying exactly one thing. . .

No firearms may be imported for commercial sale in the United States from any other country.

1. Congress clearly has the power to pass such a law under the Commerce Clause (U.S. Const., Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 3).

2. Say right up front that the purpose is to "support American manufacturing and the U.S. economy, and to reduce the number of firearms available to the public."

3. Point out that there are plenty of guns made right here in the good ol' USA. Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Colt, Winchester, Marlin, and newer companies like Kel-Tec and Daniel and Palmetto State Armory.

4. Point out that the countries exporting firearms to the U.S. (Germany, Austria, Brazil, China, Romania, Czech, Hungary, Russia, and a few others) DON'T allow free ownership of firearms for their own citizens. How the hell is that fair?

OF COURSE I want this to be the start of more "gun control." I make no bones about that. But as a stand-alone law, you can support this, and we can fight about other stuff when it comes up.

What says the peanut gallery?
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxslave

B00Mer

Keep Calm and Carry On
Sep 6, 2008
44,795
7,270
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.getafteritmedia.com
Here's my proposal. A stand-alone law saying exactly one thing. . .

No firearms may be imported for commercial sale in the United States from any other country.

1. Congress clearly has the power to pass such a law under the Commerce Clause (U.S. Const., Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 3).

2. Say right up front that the purpose is to "support American manufacturing and the U.S. economy, and to reduce the number of firearms available to the public."

3. Point out that there are plenty of guns made right here in the good ol' USA. Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Colt, Winchester, Marlin, and newer companies like Kel-Tec and Daniel and Palmetto State Armory.

4. Point out that the countries exporting firearms to the U.S. (Germany, Austria, Brazil, China, Romania, Czech, Hungary, Russia, and a few others) DON'T allow free ownership of firearms for their own citizens. How the hell is that fair?

OF COURSE I want this to be the start of more "gun control." I make no bones about that. But as a stand-alone law, you can support this, and we can fight about other stuff when it comes up.

What says the peanut gallery?

Good luck.. NRA might pull a Lobbyist or 2 out of their back pocket..
 

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
9,816
4,196
113
Olympus Mons
2. Say right up front that the purpose is to "support American manufacturing and the U.S. economy, and to reduce the number of firearms available to the public."

3. Point out that there are plenty of guns made right here in the good ol' USA. Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Colt, Winchester, Marlin, and newer companies like Kel-Tec and Daniel and Palmetto State Armory.
Might be a hard sell since the Secret Service got armed with FN Five-seveNs. Not to mention how many police forces use Glocks. I know your argument is predicated on "commercial sales" but I think the hypocrisy will be smelled and called out when govts and police services in the US are still buying imported firearms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxslave

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
49,976
3,595
113
Washington DC
Might be a hard sell since the Secret Service got armed with FN Five-seveNs. Not to mention how many police forces use Glocks. I know your argument is predicated on "commercial sales" but I think the hypocrisy will be smelled and called out when govts and police services in the US are still buying imported firearms.
No reason they can't follow suit. Here's the secret. . . there really isn't much functional difference between guns of the same type and calibre made by different manufacturers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxslave

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
9,816
4,196
113
Olympus Mons
No reason they can't follow suit. Here's the secret. . . there really isn't much functional difference between guns of the same type and calibre made by different manufacturers.
Well, there's a reason that cops/police depts prefer Glocks. They're lighter for the officers and easier on their hips when holstered, and Glock tends to offer hefty discounts to law enforcement agencies.
As for the Five-seveN, it's weight, unloaded, is around 1.3 lbs. Add in a fully loaded 20 rd magazine (30 rd mag optional) and you're lugging barely over a pound and a half.
It's a big gun in overall size with a relatively small, lead-free hollow point 5.7x28mm round that leaves a wound channel almost an inch in diameter with penetration of almost 1 foot.
The Secret Service likes it because they get special cartridges made just for them that are capable of blowing through body armour like it was a silk shirt while the gun has the kick of slightly irritated hamster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxslave

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
49,976
3,595
113
Washington DC
Well, there's a reason that cops/police depts prefer Glocks. They're lighter for the officers and easier on their hips when holstered, and Glock tends to offer hefty discounts to law enforcement agencies.
As for the Five-seveN, it's weight, unloaded, is around 1.3 lbs. Add in a fully loaded 20 rd magazine (30 rd mag optional) and you're lugging barely over a pound and a half.
It's a big gun in overall size with a relatively small, lead-free hollow point 5.7x28mm round that leaves a wound channel almost an inch in diameter with penetration of almost 1 foot.
The Secret Service likes it because they get special cartridges made just for them that are capable of blowing through body armour like it was a silk shirt while the gun has the kick of slightly irritated hamster.
Thank you for that demonstration of my point.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,326
113
Vancouver Island
Here's my proposal. A stand-alone law saying exactly one thing. . .

No firearms may be imported for commercial sale in the United States from any other country.

1. Congress clearly has the power to pass such a law under the Commerce Clause (U.S. Const., Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 3).

2. Say right up front that the purpose is to "support American manufacturing and the U.S. economy, and to reduce the number of firearms available to the public."

3. Point out that there are plenty of guns made right here in the good ol' USA. Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Colt, Winchester, Marlin, and newer companies like Kel-Tec and Daniel and Palmetto State Armory.

4. Point out that the countries exporting firearms to the U.S. (Germany, Austria, Brazil, China, Romania, Czech, Hungary, Russia, and a few others) DON'T allow free ownership of firearms for their own citizens. How the hell is that fair?

OF COURSE I want this to be the start of more "gun control." I make no bones about that. But as a stand-alone law, you can support this, and we can fight about other stuff when it comes up.

What says the peanut gallery?
I like the keeping industry at home part. But, what will keep criminals from importing foreign hardware? Unregistered handguns have been illegal in Canada since 1934 and very few can own an automatic handgun, but criminals here still have a lot of unregistered automatic or semi automatic handguns . So how will restricting law abiding taxpayers to only domestic supply help with public safety?
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
49,976
3,595
113
Washington DC
I like the keeping industry at home part. But, what will keep criminals from importing foreign hardware? Unregistered handguns have been illegal in Canada since 1934 and very few can own an automatic handgun, but criminals here still have a lot of unregistered automatic or semi automatic handguns . So how will restricting law abiding taxpayers to only domestic supply help with public safety?
I'm not trying to stop it, I'm trying to reduce it. Reducing addiction was the reason we outlawed heroin and other hard drugs. If "keeping criminals from importing" something is an absolute and irreducible requirement for a law, might as well just scrap the law-book. Every single thing we've made illegal is done by somebody every day.

As I said in the OP, I regard this as a do-able first step. I think further steps will be harder, and may fail entirely. But "harm reduction" is a perfectly legitimate reason for laws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Serryah

Serryah

Senate Member
Dec 3, 2008
6,504
1,162
113
New Brunswick
I'm not trying to stop it, I'm trying to reduce it. Reducing addiction was the reason we outlawed heroin and other hard drugs. If "keeping criminals from importing" something is an absolute and irreducible requirement for a law, might as well just scrap the law-book. Every single thing we've made illegal is done by somebody every day.

As I said in the OP, I regard this as a do-able first step. I think further steps will be harder, and may fail entirely. But "harm reduction" is a perfectly legitimate reason for laws.

It occurres to me that anytime the issue of trying to reduce/limit something comes up, the instant response from those who are against such things is "But criminals will still get it".

Sure, but the point is to reduce the likelyhood of that happening. Which leads to the question why this is such a bad thing.