OK, Conservatives: Which of These New Regulations and Gun Control Proposals Do You Support?

John Yoo, on his Main Feed post, wrote:

There are sensible regulations of gun ownership — which don’t violate the right to bear arms — that conservatives should support.

Okay, now that we have actual proposals and

  1. Eeyore
    Denise McAllister: #4 is disturbing. “categories of individuals” So anyone prohibited from owning a gun “by the government’s standards” is now considered “dangerous” and they will be on a list in the DOJ’s office? Creepy!!

    I’ve heard lots of preening about anyone on the no-fly list prohibited from buying guns – “If they can’t fly, why should they be able to buy a gun?”

    Let’s see. Teddy Kennedy was on the no-fly list. Representative John Lewis on the no-fly list. No guns for them?

    My brother was on the no-fly list. He was pulled aside at the airport and asked about past history and associations. When he didn’t “come clean,” they said “What about that time you were in the Irish Republican Army?” When he was told when, he said “Actually, I was in the Air Force at that time.”

    Someone with his same name was in the IRA. Curiously, they didn’t notice my brother’s American passport vs. Mr. IRA’s Irish passport. “Oops, sorry.”

    I’m sure when your NICS check comes back improperly denied, it should only take a few months to get it squared away.

  2. Mendel
    - Institute universal background checks, even on private transactions

    This seems somewhat reasonable to me.  If we have collectively decided that some people should not have access to firearms, and that background checks at the point of sale will be the mechanism of enforcement, it makes little sense to leave a huge and easy workaround.  Besides, why burden commercial gun dealers with an onerous regulation and give private sellers a competitive advantage?

    Everything else on the list is just drivel – but at least the kind of drivel that will likely be toothless.

  3. TheSophist
    Mendel

    - Institute universal background checks, even on private transactions

    This seems somewhat reasonable to me.  If we have collectively decided that some people should not have access to firearms, and that background checks at the point of sale will be the mechanism of enforcement, it makes little sense to leave a huge and easy workaround.  Besides, why burden commercial gun dealers with an onerous regulation and give private sellers a competitive advantage?

    Everything else on the list is just drivel – but at least the kind of drivel that will likely be toothless. · 5 minutes ago

    I have two problems with this one.

    #1 Federalism — If I want to sell my gun to my best friend here in Texas, how the Federal Govt has any authority there is beyond me. I realize I’ve lost this argument several decades ago, but like Plessy, those cases can be overturned.

    #2 Private sellers do not in any way compete with commercial sellers; we’re talking about individuals selling an old rifle here, a pistol there, not a store on the Internet.

  4. Sabrdance

    The laws will be -as ever -subject to the law of unintended consequences.  The private transaction background check would, absent some way of making the check easy to do, end private transactions.  The other two have been discussed around here before and don’t need to be relitigated.

    As for the orders, most of them strike me as harmless, but the devil is always in the details.  I wouldn’t be in favor of any of them, but I’d preserve my ire for 2 and 4.  I’d be OK with implementing 3, 7, 12, and 19 provided the money came out of something else.  Number 23 I’d allow only if they serve lunch.  If I’m going to be hectored, it will be on a full stomach.

  5. TheSophist

    So far, I think I can support #11, 12, 18 and 19.

  6. TheSophist
    Sabrdance: 

    As for the orders, most of them strike me as harmless, but the devil is alwaysin the details.  I wouldn’t be in favor of any of them, but I’d preserve my ire for 2 and 4.  I’d be OK with implementing 3, 7, 12, and 19 provided the money came out of something else.  Number 23 I’d allow only if they serve lunch.  If I’m going to be hectored, it will be on a full stomach. · 2 minutes ago

    On #3… I was looking at that wondering what state-level information they’re wanting for the NICS system that they don’t already have.

    Maybe more restraining order/family law type stuff? Just trying to think what state databases there are that might be relevant to a firearms background check.

  7. DrewInWisconsin

    Two questions that must be asked:

    1) What is the problem that these regulations will supposedly fix, and

    2) Will they?

    If the answer to the first is “Sandy Hook” the answer to the second is “No.” Therefore, I cannot support any of them.

    Furthermore, I would recommend conservatives refuse to even consider any firearms regulations until Eric Holder, a man who supplies arms to drug lords and murderers, is behind bars.

  8. Valiuth

    I support the nomination of an ATF director.

  9. S

    None. Even the ATF director. Abolish the ATF and you don’t have to worry about it.

    In the last 30 days I have:

    1. Joined the NRA

    2. Taken a pistol safety and shooting course

    3. Applied for a concealed carry permit

    I’m 35 and used to think the above three things would never happen. I always thought my brother, a lifetime NRA member, was a little paranoid. No longer. I will be buying more guns (I have three now) and more ammo each month as I get paid.

  10. tabula rasa

    Most of the items on the executive order list look they came from The Onion:

    11) Nominate an ATF director. [We don't have one?? Fast and Furious problem?]

    14) Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.  [That Memo's going to be a game-changer].

    15) Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies. ["Challenge," as in "coerce"]

    18) Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers. [Are resource officers going to be armed?  That would help.]

    19) Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education. [Jobs for 10,000 more bureaucrats]

    20) Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover. [???]

    23) Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health. [Nothing says "fun" more than talking to these two]

  11. BYUSC

    I, like many others, do not support any of them. I love this quote from KDW on NRO: “Liberals are forever asking: ‘Why would anybody need a gun like that?’ And the answer is: because we are not serfs. We are a free people living under a republic of our own construction. We may consent to be governed, but we will not be ruled.”

    That captures the essence of the debate in my opinion. We are free men. We have the right to own weapons for our protection, and we have the right to choose what kind of arms those are.

  12. BlueAnt

    I’m against everything Congress is supposed to take up.  They won’t reduce school violence, they’ll just lead to unintended side effects and repression.

    For the Executive Orders, I can support numbers 2, 5, 8, and 12 as being at least marginally useful.  Numbers 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 17-23 are generally useless, but they’re the kind of minor bureaucratic overreach that is more annoying than harmful.

    Numbers 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 13, and 16 are the kind of slippery slope measures that sound good, and may even be somewhat useful.  But they are also the kind of thing you see in an Orwell novel, as the start of a crafty plan to reduce freedoms by re-defining certain terms.

    For example:

    “Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.”

    That sounds fine.  But the Department of Homeland security is now considering Tea Partiers, preppers, the “End The Fed” crowd, etc as suspicious, dangerous groups.  How long until individualistic people who enjoy liberty too much fall into a prohibited category?

  13. Whiskey Sam

    How are background checks on private transactions even enforceable?  What about a gun someone inherits from a deceased relative?  Bought as a gift?  

    This whole idea of the federal government ending gun violence by fiat infuriates me.  Murder is already illegal.  So that doesn’t stop people, but somehow people will magically stop using guns to kill people because they’re going to obey gun laws?  Gun laws are going to have more moral authority with criminals and the insane than murder laws?  This is emotional grandstanding and idiotic on its face.

  14. Devereaux
    Valiuth: I support the nomination of an ATF director. · 0 minutes ago

    I, OTOH, support the truncation of the ATF to the AT. There is no reason whatsoever for the government to know anything about what or who owns weapons. It is that simple. None of this makes any difference in “prevention” so let’s stop pretending that it does. You want to stop paranoid schizophrenics from perpetrating these kind of disasters, shoot them when they try or keep them locked up. We do that for murders, etc. We have 3-strike laws, wherein if you do the same thing 3 times, you get a disproportionate sentence.

    We need to stop calling them “assault weapons” and call them “defensive weapons”. After all, cops regularly carry them in the squad as the “patrol rifle”. ?Why would they get an “assault rifle” and we don’t. ?Why is their rifle a “patrol rifle” and our an “assault rifle”. Words mean things.

    This is classic leftist hysteria, related to no truth or fact.

  15. Spin

    I am for all of them that will actually prevent or mitigate the horrible things that happened at Sandy Hook.  Which is to say I am not for any of them.  

  16. RPD

    Since when does being for sensible gun laws automatically mean being for more gun laws?  Guns are already heavily regulated by laws which criminals ignore. What’s the point of enacting more laws which will only apply to the unconnected law abiding citizen?

  17. M. T. S.

    I just realized I ‘liked’ all the comments on this page.

  18. Deborah Shey

    None of them.  The Feds are too involved in our private lives as it is.  Until Stinky cleans up DOJ and Fast and Furious—and SOS and Benghazigate—he has no business inserting the Federal Government in the lives of private citizens who provide the money he is wasting constantly.

  19. Mr. Bildo

    At this point in the conversation, can I just interject:

    “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Well meaning or not, these are infringements. Not a single one of these “executive actions” is meant to secure our rights. Therefor, they must be the opposite.

Want to comment on stories like these? Become a member today!

You'll have access to:

  • All Ricochet articles, posts and podcasts.
  • The conversation amongst our members.
  • The opportunity share your Ricochet experiences.

Join Today!

Already a Member? Sign In