How To End Gun Violence

Ending gun violence neither requires repealing the 2nd Amendment, writing entirely new legislation, nor doing nothing – as is being now done, no matter how seemingly well intentioned. With minor modifications to existing law as language additions, almost all interested parties are satisfied – not all, but many, if not most – concerns are addressed in a rational, reasonable, lawful, Constitutional, and commonsensical legislative process that also minimizes taxpayer burden.

Opinions run the gamut, from one extreme, including repeal of the Second Amendment – by former SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens, a Republican and Ford appointee – to the other, from arming teachers, to wholesale abandonment of all existing firearm law.

But rarely, if ever, is there any commonsensical solution ever made on settling on any problem with rational, reasonable, logical compromise that achieves most all goals, within reason, and with very slight compromise to all interested parties.

My conservative friends think me liberal, while my liberal friends think me conservative, and both are wrong.

The casual and cursory reader may now depart, for the next few paragraphs are my long-term thoughts, having given this highly problematic, traumatic, troublesome matter significantly weighty consideration as far back as 2015, when I first published my thoughts. But first, some introduction.

• U.S. military veteran
• Formerly licensed to carry concealed a high-capacity 9mm semi-automatic large frame pistol in Condition 0 – that is, fully loaded magazine (15 rounds) + 1 in chamber (=16), hammer cocked, safety off, everywhere (LITERALLY) I went… church, school, work, shopping, etc. That’s the whole point of concealed carry… no one knows. If I was out, I was armed and ready. I was expert with my firearm, and could field strip, and reassemble it in 15 seconds. Suffice it to say, I was also deadly accurate in firing under all conditions, and fortunately never suffered accident, nor experienced cause to use it for it’s intended purpose – to apply instant lethal force to an enemy/enemies in a life-threatening situation, if left with no other alternative. Those days are gone, and over.

I remain an advocate of the 2nd Amendment, and am fully convinced that we CAN, and DO have a rather simple, lawful, legal, rational, reasonable solution to the problem at hand, that acknowledges our Constitutional rights, and existing legal prohibitions forbidding those who may not already own/posses firearms.

My solution is as follows:

It’s purely insane, that we – our Congress – have been paralyzed by fear.

My solution is in keeping with the 2nd Amendment –and– existing law. And that is, to NFA (National Firearms Act) ALL assault-type rifles –and– magazines over 5 or 7 round capacity.

NFA allows individuals to own short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and automatic weapons only AFTER passing a STRINGENT FBI background investigation (including by State & Local law enforcement), fingerprints, photographed –and– paying a $200 tax to the ATF for each and every item purchased. Possession does NOT occur, and is PROHIBITED until AFTER successful passage of background investigation. It is neither a blanket license. Each and every individual item is NFA’d. If they don’t pass background investigation, their $200 tax is refunded. That includes high-capacity magazines for pistols –and– rifles and shotguns of any kind.

We could also expand the FFL (Federal Firearms License) to include collectors (curios, historical, etc.) –and– to limit personal private possession to 5 pistols, 5 rifles, and 5 shotguns (and/or any combination maximum 5 each, TOTAL of 15) BEFORE the FFL requirement would “kick in,” or be applicable. The FFL has similar requirements as the NFA. That would prevent legal mass accumulation of firearms for no good purpose. We could also do something similar to bullets/shells.

Already, Kentucky has a 5 round limit in deer hunting rifles, and Federal law limits shells in shotguns for waterfowl to 3. Several other states have similar hunting rules, including limits on the number of shells or cartridges which may be taken into the field, the gauge and type of shot for certain fowl, specifications on firearms, cartridges and calibers for hunting certain animals, require hunter safety, education, and more.

WE CAN DO THIS –and– keep within the letter and spirit of the law.

Oh… and states, though they are required to maintain a list of disqualified individuals (such as mental unstable/defectives, etc.), some states do NOT report such lists to the Federal government. Apparently, there is no penalty for not obeying the law. That should change.

Already, there is ID “micro-stamping” of hammers on center-fire firearms. Not certain about rim-fire, or shotguns.

I think if we expanded the FFL as described above, that would fulfill the registration aspect… at least in part, by limiting ownership/possession before adherence to law was required.

I think also, that states could require initial and periodic regular safety and proficiency testing for firearms, and should. If states refuse to enact such commonsense requirements, there should be significant penalties. We did similarly with seatbelts, DUIs, and DOT money, and seatbelt use is now mandatory in all 50 states, and DUIs are down. Ownership/possession would be contingent upon successful passage of such testing.

[Respondent: “Regular required training and testing would seem consistent with the “well-regulated militia” aspect of the 2nd.”]

continuing…

Me: Yes, it would. Insurance companies could “get in on the picture” by discounting Home Owners’ insurance costs, or other blanket insurance pursuant to the same (successful passage of testing).