The emerging Biden Proposal

[Beavah]

Fair enough, Eagle732 (though they do require speed governors for trucks in Canada, so it is somethin' that other nations are trying). We don't require speed governors in cars, which might be analogous to limiting magazine size.

 

We do, however, regulate vehicle manufacture for safety in LOTS of ways, though. Which would be da equivalent of a whole bunch of safety laws on guns manufactured or imported to the U.S.

 

We do have speed limits, though, which might be da equivalent of gun-limited zones (but with lesser penalties).

 

We do limit da size of vehicles to a standard; we do charge extra taxes to larger vehicles with higher axle weights, which would be da equivalent of higher taxes on more powerful firearms.

 

We do require registration of vehicles.

 

We do require training and licensing of drivers if they want to leave their own property.

 

We do tax gasoline in order to pay for da services used by everyone who drives (road repair, etc.), which would be da equivalent of taxing ammunition to pay for the costs of general firearm ownership.

 

We do require liability insurance for automobiles in many if not most states.

 

We do operate on a strict liability basis for some sorts of automobile issues.

 

We do collect data on automobile accidents, and fund substantial research programs to improve automobile and highway safety.

 

We do let private property owners set their own rules for what they allow on their property, including where our car should be parked (or our firearm stored).

 

I don't feel that my freedom to drive is substantially limited by all that, eh? In most cases, I think it's just responsible and prudent. In some cases it annoys me in small ways, but I'm willing to put up with it because I recognize there are reasons for it and that not everyone agrees with me.

 

So I think we could come up with some reasonable regime like that for firearms, eh? Da fatalities and injuries from firearms in da U.S. are roughly comparable to cars (by order of magnitude), so some similar approach doesn't seem unreasonable.

 

Beavah

 

[CalicoPenn]

So then the question becomes is it a good idea to pass gun free zone laws that allow churches, schools, movie theaters, restaurants, shopping malls, amusement parks, zoos, museums, and other places where large numbers of unrelated people gather to declare themselves a gun free zone if they wish or not?

 

When you start to blame gun free zones as part of the problem, then you are claiming that the law doesn't work because criminals don't obey the law. You aren't arguing whether the law is a good idea or not.

 

The problem is folks not understanding the intent of the gun free zone laws. It's not about the criminals. It's about balancing the rights of private property owners and of people that don't carry guns on public property with the rights of those who wish to carry guns.

[Eagle732]

Well Beaver, the first point I would make is that cars are not protected by the Constitution. However:

 

"We do have speed limits, though, which might be da equivalent of gun-limited zones (but with lesser penalties).

Yep and you can't have certain classes of weapons, already a law.

 

We do limit da size of vehicles to a standard; we do charge extra taxes to larger vehicles with higher axle weights, which would be da equivalent of higher taxes on more powerful firearms.

Yep and all firearms and ammunition is currently subject to the the federal 11% Pittman Robertson Tax. This was self imposed by sportsman. additionally there is the 6% state sales tax. Already a law.

 

We do require registration of vehicles.

Hmm, my state has required all handguns and "assault" rifles to be registered at the time of sale already. Already a law here, your state may vary and that's there right.

 

We do require training and licensing of drivers if they want to leave their own property.

Yep, already have to take a handgun safety course to purchase a handgun, and a hunter's safety course to hunt. Already a law here, your state may vary and that's there right.

 

We do tax gasoline in order to pay for da services used by everyone who drives (road repair, etc.), which would be da equivalent of taxing ammunition to pay for the costs of general firearm ownership.

See Pittman Robertson tax comment above.

 

We do require liability insurance for automobiles in many if not most states.

If I misuse my guns I should be held legally responsible and the victim can sue me. Insurance would be dirt cheap for law abiding gun owners because the risk is so low. I already have insurance through the NRA. How are you going to get the criminals to buy insurance? Or is my insurance premiums going to have to cover the injuries caused by the criminals just in case they decide to disregard that law too?

 

We do operate on a strict liability basis for some sorts of automobile issues.

Pretty vague, not sure what you mean here

 

We do collect data on automobile accidents, and fund substantial research programs to improve automobile and highway safety.

There's plenty of biased government studies already. CDC funding for gun studies was cut in '96 because the studies were studies were flawed (biased).

 

We do let private property owners set their own rules for what they allow on their property, including where our car should be parked (or our firearm stored).

Incorrect, lots of areas restrict where you can park a car due to local ordinances and homeowners association). All firearms laws apply wether I'm on my property or not. If I have a shotgun with a barrel under 18" and the police find it on my property I can't claim that because it didn't leave my property it's OK

 

I don't feel that my freedom to drive is substantially limited by all that, eh? In most cases, I think it's just responsible and prudent. In some cases it annoys me in small ways, but I'm willing to put up with it because I recognize there are reasons for it and that not everyone agrees with me.

That's you right to feel anyway you want.

 

So I think we could come up with some reasonable regime like that for firearms, eh? Da fatalities and injuries from firearms in da U.S. are roughly comparable to cars (by order of magnitude), so some similar approach doesn't seem unreasonable.

I mentioned two points that I thought should be addressed, documented mental illness and federal prosecution of firearms violations. I know for a fact that the 5 year mandatory sentence for gun violations is the first charge dropped. I've see it first hand

 

 

Since you want to compare guns to cars I propose instead, we regulate cars the way we regulate guns. My good friend Mike Williamson wrote me the other day about this very subject (thanks Mike, great piece, I knew it would come in handy).

 

WE NEED TO REGULATE CARS LIKE WE DO GUNS!

 

"To buy or operate a standard car, one will have to be 18 years old. Under that age, adult supervision will be mandatory. This means the adult must be in the vehicle with the underage driver.

 

To buy a sports car, you will have to be 21. A "Sports car" will be defined as any combination of any two of the following: 2 doors instead of 4, spoked rims not requiring hubcaps, aerodynamic effects such as spoilers or air dams, a wheelbase under 100 inches, a manual transmission, a curb weight under 3000 lbs, fiberglass or other non-metal construction, or painted logos. For every purchase, you will have to fill out a questionnaire confirming you're a US citizen, do not use drugs or abuse alcohol, have never had a conviction for alcohol related incidents or reckless driving. Lying on this form will be punishable by 10 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine.

 

New cars will only be purchased from Federal Automobile Licensees (FAL) who must provide fingerprints, proof of character, secure storage for all vehicles, and who must call the Federal Bureau of Motor Vehicles to verify your information before purchase. They may approve or decline or delay the sale. If they decline, you may appeal the decision in writing to a review board. If they delay, it becomes an approval automatically after 10 days. However, the dealer may decline to complete such a sale in case of later problems.

 

Additionally, the purchase of more than two cars in a given year will require signing an understanding that buying cars in order to resell them without a license is a crime. There is an 11% federal excise tax on all new vehicles, plus any state or local tax.

 

You will be eligible to take your drivers' license test to determine your eligibility to operate on the street. Rules will vary by state, with some states requiring proof of need to own a vehicle for business purposes, and up to 40 hours of professional education. Also, not all states will accept all licenses. You will need to keep track of this information. Additionally, speed limits will not be posted. It is your responsibility to research the driving laws in each area you wish to travel through. Some communities may not allow out of state vehicles, sports cars, or even any vehicles at all. Violation of these laws will result in confiscation and destruction of your vehicle by crushing. (I'll add that your license from your home state might not be accepted in another state and you will not be able to operate a vehicle in the other state)

 

Some vehicle law convictions will result in loss of your driving privileges forever. This includes reckless operation, drunk driving, an incorrect bumper height or attachment, or the wrong type of exhaust. Collisions may also result in permanent loss of driving, if injury occurs and negligence is proven. In addition, any felony conviction of any kind--even tax evasion--will mean permanent loss of your driving privileges. In these cases, it will even be illegal to ride or sit in a friend's car.

 

There is also discussion of prohibiting brightly colored vehicles. Vehicles are transportation, not toys, and should not be marketed in a way that suggests they are intended for casual use. It is important that everyone be aware of the dangerous nature of cars.

 

In the future, we may have to consider large displacement engines (anything over 2.5 liters) and transmissions with more than three speeds as being High Performance Items to be added to the federal registry. There will be a window during which you can register your items for $2000 each, provided you meet the background check. Otherwise, you will have to immediately surrender them for disposal. Operating an unlicensed HPV after this date will result in confiscation and destruction of the vehicle, and the 10/$10,000 punishment.

 

These laws and regulations are due to drunk drivers, reckless drivers and other criminals. The automobile community should be glad it is allowed to exist at all, given all the deaths and environmental damage caused by these vehicles.

 

The president said today that he strongly supports your right to own and drive basic, standard vehicles for farm use and carpooling. But he and many other people have made it clear that eventually maybe this month we need to cease all manufacturing of such high powered automobiles for the civilian market.

 

Eventually, we need to move away from the notion that owning and operating a vehicle is a right and entitlement, and limit it to people with a proven, bona fide professional need. There are plenty of trains and buses for normal people. This is how most civilized nations are moving and is not a violation of your right to travel."

 

Hope you enjoyed the read Beaver, feel free to nit pick it apart.

 

Remember Cars don't kill people, drivers kill people!

Have a nice day

 

 

(This message has been edited by Eagle732)(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

[Beavah]

LOL. Yah, OK Eagle732, point taken.

 

It seems to me that what would be a good idea here would be to take this opportunity to streamline and clean up some of this stuff, eh? I am in full agreement that for easily transportable items like cars and guns, some sort of uniformity is in order rather than a lot of patchwork stuff. I'm also in complete agreement that relatively simple, well-thought-out mechanisms are preferable to many pages of picky regulations.

 

So what might that look like? It's not goin' to look completely like cars, because we do allow convicted felons to drive and we might not want that for firearms.

 

One option is TwoCubDad's strict liability/insurance scheme, eh? Owning a potentially dangerous item like a gun is similar to owning a potentially dangerous item like a car. Da liability falls to the owner. Only difference is that for guns, I wouldn't exempt "theft" from liability unless the gun was secured against theft and the person reported the theft immediately. Yeh could buy insurance to pool this risk, but it must have high limits. Alternately yeh could post a surety bond to show yeh are financially able to handle any liability. Having one or the other in place would be necessary to purchase ammo.

 

Then lift most other regulation. Presumably nobody would insure a felon or a mentally ill person, so background checks could go away. Da private insurance market could set appropriate rates for guns of all types, so all the look-and-feel or magazine size stuff could go away. Universal registration would be required to make this work, like what is done for cars. Yeh would still need some stuff in place for straw sales or trafficking, and I reckon there are still a few places we don't want guns to be carried. Training and proficiency requirements could be set by insurers as well.

 

Another simple option in my book would be just to tax ammunition in an amount equal to what is required to pay for all firearms related incidents in terms of medical, accidental or wrongful death or injury, and LEO response and prosecution. In other words, we gun owners pay da full societal cost of guns so that others don't have to. Then lift most of the other regulation. Social pressure and pressure for more training would take care of a lot of things. This is sort of da way things have been going for cigarettes, but da tax is still too low.

 

So I'm right there with yeh about overregulation and da silliness of semi-automatics with "one military-like feature". Controls are best done simply.

 

Now to be fair, there are a lot of people who seem to be lacking in da forethought department, so we'd probably want some secondary regulations, too, in order to help out da folks who don't think far enough ahead about something being not in their own best interest. I'd keep required training and proficiency for different classes of firearm or different uses. I might throw in an eye exam same as for cars, too.

 

Beavah

 

[Moggie]

"We have a cricket bat in the house and that is used in more murders than guns in Britain."

 

Er.. that would because virtually all firearms are illegal in here the UK, despite what the British press would have you believe, its very difficult to get hold of firearms here; it might be better to compare cricket bat with baseball bat crime.

 

Cheers

Gareth

[Eagle732]

Taxing ammo in a punitive way would be unconstitutional. Why not just repeal the 2nd and then the government can do what it wants?

Again driving a car is a privilege not a right. The State Police will find you and take your license and remove the tags from you car if they are revoked because these items belong to the state.

 

[JMHawkins]

1. I'm not a proponent of registration and background checks. I don't see much evidence they are effective at keeping guns out of the hands of loons or criminals. Of course there is the argument that the existing registration and checks aren't sufficient and if we just do more, it will start working. It's a point I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on. It would be moot if there wasn't also a downside to registration and checks. Registration has been a precusor to confiscation often enough to warrant concerns about a slippery slope, and background checks are subject to abuse, both intentional and unintentional. The TSA "No Fly" list has been a source of problems, and you don't have to be a conspiracy nut to worry it might be abused. So for me, the potential for trouble from registration/checks outweighs the potention for good. Your milage may vary, but I oppose it.

 

2. Even propoents of gun control agree this doesn't do anything. It's symbolic, and symbolic gestures are a bad idea when there is a) a serious problem, and b) disagreement and distrust among the folks searching for a solution.

 

3. I'm not opposed to research, but this Executive Order raises two concerns. First, I'd rather the CDC spend what resources it is given out of the public purse on actual diseases. Gun control is not a health issue, it is a public policy debate, and attempting to cast it as a health issue is a dishonest tactic. Sure, gunshots kill and wound, but they are not a disease. Encouraging (which soon becomes requiring) doctors to ask about guns in the home is a highly questionable tactic when asked of adult patients, and a complete betrayal of trust when asked of children.

 

The second problem I have with the CDC executive order is that Congress has the authority to determine funding, and if Congress has prohibited the expendature of public funds on gun research, then it is unconstitutional for the President via Executive Order to spend money on it. Fundamentally, this is about proponents of gun control wanting to use public money to lobby for their goals. We have enough of a budget problem as it is, we don't need to fund political advertising with tax dollars. Sure, in an ideal world, the CDC would be above such things, but they're not.

[packsaddle]

What IS "taxing ammo in a punitive way"? At what threshold does it become 'punitive'?

[Brewmeister]

Why not just repeal the 2nd and then the government can do what it wants?

 

Because the second amendment does not grant gun rights.

[JMHawkins]

What IS "taxing ammo in a punitive way"? At what threshold does it become 'punitive'?

 

This of course is the question, and the reason why "sin" taxes, or other attempts to use taxation to discourage legal behavior are problematic.

 

At what threshold would a tax on ink be punitive and start to infringe on 1st Ammendment rights? At what threshold would a tax on attorney's fees be punative and an infringement on someone's 4th, 5th and 6th Ammendment rights?

 

Clever lawyering around the 2nd Ammendment by trying to claim the right to keep and bear arms doesn't include the right to load them with real ammunition is not all together honest.

[Beavah]

Registration has been a precusor to confiscation often enough to warrant concerns about a slippery slope,

 

Yah, hmmm... JMHawkins, I'm a pretty decent student of history. Can yeh name even one example where registration has been a precursor to confiscation in the United States? Or anywhere?

 

We do licensing, background checks and registration for other dangerous things, eh? Stuff like explosives. That has proven quite effective.

 

Registration is probably necessary to make theft for profit, straw sales, illegal trafficking and such more difficult. We register cars because it makes car theft for profit more difficult. Some towns register bicycles for da same reason. The ability to track ownership is also probably necessary for any scheme that dispenses with regulation in favor of personal accountability. You have to be able to identify the person to hold accountable.

 

If yeh aren't a proponent of some scheme of personal responsibility, then yeh open the door to more general across-the-board regulation and control.

 

Da restrictions on research are a matter of law, and cannot be addressed directly by executive order.

 

Here I agree with packsaddle, it's hard not to consider restrictions on research to be premeditated ignorance. It's a bit like da cigarette lobby trying to de-fund research on cigarettes and lung cancer. Da only reason to do that is that you already know what the outcome is goin' to be and yeh want to make money off of killing people.

 

The CDC collects data on every sort of injury, eh? Includin' those dangerous boy scout wheelbarrows. Their mission is public health. But when da CDC gets funding to support research, they put out a call for proposals and anybody with experience in da field can apply for grants in that area. That's the way almost all federal research works, eh? It's done by the private sector, by lots of independent groups with different viewpoints. Da NRA could get grant money to research the effectiveness of education programs, for example.

 

Right now, da CDC and other agencies can't even collect data to make available to anyone, eh? How does that make sense?

 

We hear these stories about how CCW carriers have stopped crime; we have poor researchers suspected of fraud who claim that more guns means less crime. Those theories should be tested. They might be right!

 

Unless yeh truly believe guns are like cigarettes and yeh already know the answer is not going to be to your liking, there's no reason to be afraid of independent research. It sure beats only having pseudo-research put together by one or another special interest.

 

I'm not sure why a tax on ammunition to pay for the real societal costs of firearms is "punitive." Someone will have to explain that to me. Seems like it's just paying our own way instead of expectin' other folks to subsidize us.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[RememberSchiff]

Can yeh name even one example where registration has been a precursor to confiscation in the United States?

 

Post Katrina, New Orleans

"NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 8 - Waters were receding across this flood-beaten city today as police officers (and National Guard) began confiscating weapons, including legally registered firearms, from civilians in preparation for a mass forced evacuation of the residents still living here."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/national/nationalspecial/08cnd-storm.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCX1OfhckC8

[JMHawkins]

Yah, hmmm... JMHawkins, I'm a pretty decent student of history. Can yeh name even one example where registration has been a precursor to confiscation in the United States? Or anywhere?

 

New Orleans, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Great Britain

 

All English-speaking (well, if you're willing to stretch the definition a bit for New Orleans and Australia) locations. Previously existing registry databases were used for confiscation or forced-buy-back legislation. I'm a bit surprised you wouldn't know that. I'm guessing you will dispute these examples.

 

As far as the CDC goes, allow me to reiterate what I said before. I am not opposed to research, but I want the tax dollars the CDC spends to be spent on public health issues. Gun control is a public policy debate, not a public health debate. Here's how I differentiate the two. Researching what directions show the most promise for addressing the rise of drug-resistant bacteria is public health research. Debating whether increased gun controls will increase or decrease gun violence, and assuming it decreases it whether the magnitude of the decrease is worth the price, is a public policy debate. I think it is problematic to have a federally funded agency producing material used in a public policy debate. I've spent enough time in bureacracies to know that they will produce the findings expected of them by the folks paying the freight, just like the private researchers tobacco companies paid to "prove" that smoking wasn't bad for you. Being a government agency doesn't exempt them from that failing. It does however compound the problem by forcing taxpayers who disagree to pay for the research they disagree with. That's a bad situation. That is why I think the CDC should be removed from this political debate. It's not like there's a shortage of people with money who favor gun control - they can fund their own research.

 

Taxes - yeah, who is to say when a tax becomes punative. That's why I think it's a bad idea to tax things as a way of discouraging them. And trying to say "well, it creates costs for society" doesn't get around the problem. If something is bad enough that the force of government should discourage it (for whatever reason, whether it's moral or fiancial) then outlaw it. If, for whatever reason, you can't muster the political will to outlaw something, attempting to tax it into oblivion is dishonest. As far as I'm concerened, an "ammo tax" is on the same moral plane as a poll tax. Both are objectionable because they attempt to make it a financial burdeb to avail oneself of civil rights. How would you feel about a $20,000 tax on "Not Guilty" pleas in federal court? It's just a tax, and we use it to offset the financial burden imposed by these rotten perps who insist on exercising their constitutional rights to a trail instead of just pleading guilty to the deal offered by the DA. What's wrong with that?

 

[edit: oops, had Australia listed twice above - one reference should be Canada, eh]

(This message has been edited by JMHawkins)

[vol_scouter]

There are no taxes on newspapers because freedom of the press is a right. The government could suppress that right by imposing large taxes. In my view, there should be no taxes on firearms or ammunition for the same reason.

 

It is sad to me to see folks who should know more than the average citizen about their rights due to their Scouting experiences to be so willing to give up or suppress their rights, to invade privacy, and to punish law abiding citizens for exercising their rights.

 

If you want to suppress our rights, then repeal or amend the Second Amendment, do not shred the constitution. Are we no longer a nation of laws?

 

Benjamin Franklin echoes true through the ages: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." I would add, that they will achieve neither.

[moosetracker]

Well, newspaper stories might cause someone to freak out and murder another or perhaps incite a riot.. Perhaps.. But, if so, the newspaper that printed the story may face someone legal action against them over it, even if truthful, if it can be proved the story incited a riot or something. Some silly nonsense about "with rights come responsibility"..

 

But, if newspapers do start causing similar deaths as guns did, and the recommendation was that in order to uphold the freedom of speech regardless of the countless riots and murders it produced, the answer was to triple the countries S.W.A.T. force, and put a private armed guard with anyone who the paper does a questionable story on.. Yeah, I could see taxing the newspapers to pay for thier decision to constantly use free speech in irresponsible ways..