Gun control laws. Reasonable or stupid?

[Nyles]

Things about our gun laws I agree with:

-Liscense to own a firearm - I don't think anyone should be able to walk into a gun shop and walk out with a gun, and I think in the long term liscensing is less onerous than a background check every time.

-3 classes of gun liscense - Non-restricted = long guns; restricted = handguns; prohibited = full auto & other "scary" guns. This is an oversimplification, but it'll do for discussion. I don't think that a handgun is the same thing as a deer rifle, or that a submachine gun is the same thing as a handgun and it makes sense to have different levels on control on them.

-Storage requirements - I'm sorry, but I don't agree with storing a loaded gun in an unlocked area.

-Antique firearms - Our antique laws aren't perfect, but they're pretty rational. An antique firearm isn't treated as a firearm, but still has to be stored properly and when used in a crime it becomes one.


Things about our gun laws I'm indifferent to:

-Registration of firearms - the program is mismanaged and a huge waste of money, but it's not particularly onerous and done right it could be cost effective. I don't think it's necessary, but it doesn't bother me.

-Authorization to transport restricted firearms - same deal, it's not onerous so I don't really mind. I have a standing ATT for the range, anywhere else I need to take them I phone it in and they fax it to me. Takes 10 minutes.

-Lack of handgun carry - done responsibly I think concealed carry is a good thing, but working in a gun shop you deal with WAY too many people who should NOT be allowed to carry a handgun. And most of them would.


Things about our gun laws I dislike:

-Prohibition of certain firearms - if you owned one before they were prohibited you still can, but otherwise you're SOL. I can kinda see the rationale behind prohibiting full autos, but when they can be purchased by properly-liscensed individuals they become so expensive that criminals don't use them. I'd rather see prohibs just become a more-regulated class of restricted.

-Barrel length / caliber requirements on handguns - Unless you owned one before 1995, you can't own a handgun with a barrel under 4.1" or in .25 or .32 caliber. That's just stupid. Even if you're worried about concealability, make it based on overall length, not barrel length. I own guns a hell of a lot more concealable that a P.08 Luger or Bolo Mauser, but those are both prohibited. At the very least, I'd like to see a full exemption for pre-1945 pistols - we already have a partial in that they can be passed directly along the bloodline.

-Wilderness carry only for liscensed trappers - The average person cannot carry a handgun in the woods, and that I actually disagree with. I like to hike in grizzly country, my mom likes to pick blueberries in grizzly country. I don't want to carry a shotgun hiking and she definately wouldn't. I'd like to carry a pistol in that case, but because I'm not a "wilderness professional" I can't. I don't consider this the same thing as carrying in a city.

-Magazine capacity limits - this bothers me more as a collector than a shooter. I like that there are exemptions for rare and historically significant magazines, but its a very short list (off the top of my head, Luger trommel mag, Bren anti-aircraft drum, Huot automatic rifle spool mag, and maybe a Lewis pan mag) and I hate putting a pin through ANY collectible. Of course, once you start allowing vintage, why not modern, and so on until to be rational everything has to be legal.