Please Define Common-Sense Gun Laws

Well common sense being we already have the right keep and bear arms and that it shall not be infringed upon I would hope anything less is treasonous and criminal

2 Likes

@Albert_J, Tim does give context to the term “Commonsense gun laws” in his letter.

As the letter states, we do indeed feel some common sense gun reform is needed, and we later explain that means national concealed carry reciprocity, nothing more. Take a look at the video in the link below, we feel it does a great job of explaining Tim’s views on this.

5 Likes

As we read frequently about crimes committed by felons, prohibiting them from obtaining firearms works as well as making Marijuana, Heroin, and other “dangerous” drugs illegal. People that are willing to commit a violent crime are already willing to commit other crimes, such as illegally obtaining firearms. It is already illegal for a felon to obtain - by any means - and possess and/or use a firearm. If the person is a that much of a threat to society that you believe they should not be allowed to obtain firearms, we should not be releasing them to prey upon the innocent.

2 Likes

Think we have had this discussion before. The problem is that violent criminals are released from prison all the time. Often before their sentence is up and despite continued violent behavior in prison. I think most people don’t have an issue with keeping clearly dangerous people from having easy access to weapons when we can’t for whatever reason keep them in a place where they can’t do harm to others. Sure the career criminals and gang members can get an illegal firearm on the street within days of leaving prison with little effort. But I don’t have a problem with making it a little harder and more expensive for them than simply going to the corner gun store.

I think non violent felons should not have their rights removed once they have served their time and there should be easier ways for violent felons to prove they have reformed so their rights can be returned once their time and probation are over. But once you imminently threaten and/or actually harm an innocent person without just cause you should expect to lose your rights and need to work hard to earn them back.

I read that letter/email all the way through…

and IMHO when common sense was brought up the answer given was CCW reciprocity for all the US…

so IMHO what I saw and believe is a attempt at turning the system being used back on the users…

and starting to think there may be something there… take their words and redirect them back at em???

1 Like

The problem is, as we know, that does not stop them, nor make it more expensive for them. What it does do is make it more onerous and legally perilous for the law-abiding. In states with more restrictive firearm laws, the rate of firearm ownership for the law-abiding is lower than in the more liberal states. Furthermore, studies show that rates of minority and women firearm ownership is far lower in the restrictive states. Additionally, any additional costs make it more difficult for the lower-income people to own firearms.

We have all sorts of programs to aid low-income people, none of which aid them in obtaining tools for self-defense. We know that statistically, those are the people that will more likely face a violent crime than one of us living in much safer area in the 'burbs. Statistics show that most firearms are owned by older, wealthy white men. I believe in egalitarianism, one of the principles on which our country was founded; therefore “gun control” is unjust as it is discriminatory.

3 Likes

My very limited understanding is that firearms on the black market cost 2 to 3 times as much as legally purchased firearms. I agree with everything else you said though in terms of law abiding minorities and low income citizens needing affordable access to self defense tools and training. Just don’t think limitations on violent criminals is a big factor in that problem.

How do you force people that do not follow the law to follow the law? Licensing, fees, etc., are not paid, nor are background checks done, by those already in violation of the law. There is no legal means for a prohibited person to obtain, possess, nor use firearms. That is like saying we need to make you get a license, permit, background check to obtain prescription drugs because the addict on the street is using illegal drugs.

That may be, but that is not the only source, nor the primary source. Many get them through theft or “straw purchases”, wherein someone that can legally obtain a firearm, illegally obtains one for the prohibited person. Regardless of how the prohibited person obtains a firearm it is illegal.

Murder, robbery, etc., are all crimes, regardless of the method or tool used to commit the crime. The crime is the act, not the tool used. I live in Virginia, Maryland has most of the “gun control” laws sought by the antis, yet their crime rates are far higher than in Virginia. So, “gun control” obviously is not the solution.

Drug laws are so ineffective that many states are “legalizing” Marijuana, though, by federal law, they cannot do that, and you are still typically committing federal crimes by obtaining it. If you are in possession of Marijuana and a firearm, you are now a felon.

1 Like

Best guess is Tim is incorrect about any more common sense gun laws are needed. They don’t enforce the laws they have now. This is just me but I think a person in his position should choose his words carefully because here’s the spin Tim s from the USCCA states “You know that we need common-sense gun law reforms” out of context? Do they care?

2 Likes

The democrats always want to play the “common sense gun law or reform” card, because they know that they can play on the emotions of the people, no matter what, these laws do not work, even when people pass background checks and purchased fire arms legally, so they think that banning AR 15’s and high capacity magazines is the answer, well it’s not, even with the current laws in place it still will not prevent shootings, the democrats think that they can abolish the 2nd amendment, think again, any amendment to the constitution must be passed by the house and senate by two thirds vote, and then ratified by three fourths of the fifty states, or thirty eight of them. so look how many states are pro 2A, then of course they will try gun confiscation which will not happen and they know it, this is the most common sense gun law, PUT THE BLAME WHERE IT BELONGS WHICH IT IS AT THE SHOOTERS FEET, but this is common sense which the democrats, anti gunners and a lot of people cannot comprehend.

1 Like

I find it disconcerting to see how many folks here jump on Tim and the USCCA about his letter to biden before reading the whole thing. IMO, Tims writing was brilliant, and worth this years membership fee on its own. Seems, left or right, the masses have fallen to reacting before getting the whole story; we’ve become a nation of knee-jerk reactionary idiots.

6 Likes

I couldn’t have put it better myself.

4 Likes

This ^^^^^^^^^. I’m surprised it hasn’t already gone viral.

3 Likes

We have become a nation of sound bites where everyone is seeking only to reaffirm their own confirmation biases instead of seeking to better understand the full picture. It is stupid, but it is reality. So we do need to be very careful what sound bites we create. I like what Tim is trying to do here but think the letter could have been crafted more strongly and clearly. Since he is speaking for all of us it may have been nice if he asked for some input first. Though I know that likely would have created a crap storm here that probably would not have been very productive.

@dave17. We are just going to have to agree to disagree on whether or not allowing violent criminals to legally own and carry guns makes sense.

I believe that the phrase was used intentionally to confront its constant use by gun grabbers.

There is little of any sense to the proposals made by gun control advocates. How exactly would these laws have prevented the last shooting instance that makes you insist that “we must do something!” is best addressed by doing something that infringes on a Constitutional right but provides no relief for victims.

By saying “common sense law (sic)” that are GROUNDED IN REALITY he is exposing, not endorsing, leftist rhetoric.

4 Likes

That was my reaction as well. Taking their own words and turning them around is far more effective than directly opposing them. Think of it as verbal judo.

3 Likes

The Democrats have passed laws in some states, and seeking to do such federally, that prohibits numerous other groups of citizens that are not violent convicted felons from legally being allowed the RKBA. The 1938 FFA and subsequent 1968 GCA were clearly just the beginning.

It’s not about “allowing” violent felons the RKBA as much as it is that every person has the right to self-defense, including violent felons. Curtailing their ability to such is just as wrong as curtailing ours.

This would be a really good time for Tim to come to the forum of his creating and interact with his customers. Perhaps he has a point of view that we would be interested in hearing about.

Cheers,

Craig6

3 Likes

I think that the USCCA doesn’t have the numbers yet to be a national player …yet.

But I am willing to bet somewhere in Delta Defense you do have an Analytics Department. That could break down on a state by state the exact amount of that 580,000 live in each state. It should avg. about 11,000 per state. So write that exact same letter to state Governors and State legislatures and then go through and cherry pick out the states you think it might work in. Then you send them those letters and that video.

Maybe, you can then get some movement at the State level.

3 Likes