« A Return to Single Shots | Main | Deer Rifle Accuracy Tips »

October 22, 2007

This page has been moved to http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Gun Shots at its new location: www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots.

Write Your Own Gun Law!

Today’s challenge is to come up with ideas for “reasonable” gun control. We know that anti-gunners are always braying about the need for “reasonable” restrictions on our firearms in order to create a crime-free society. Restrictions like getting rid of those nasty barrel shrouds, those nasty .50 caliber projectiles, those nasty Saturday Night Specials, those nasty…well, you get the point.

The inspiration for this exercise is this post over at Of Arms & The Law about the alarm over the muzzleloader “loophole” in New York State.

Here are my two suggestions:

In the spirit of recent news out of California, I vote for mandatory micro-stamping on all bullet molds. You know, to track crooks who like to “roll their own.” (Lee Precision, I’m putting you on notice!)

My other proposal is for mandatory tattooing of all gun owners. This law would require that we put the serial numbers of all our guns on our forearms. This regulation should appeal to history buffs.

What other “reasonable” gun laws should we put on the books? Your turn.

John Snow



Why don't we have background checks on all people attempting to buy a gun from a retailer. We should also have a law/regulation "encouraging" gun owners to run a background check on someone before attempting to sell their gun (aka private property transfer) to somebody else.

On a more serious note, I believe all guns that have an effective range* beyond 100 yards should be banned. I also think we should have a law on the books banning the following calibers - .17, .22, .243, .25, .26, .277, .28, .308, .310, .32, .338, .357, .40, .416, .44, .45, .46, .50, .60, .70, anything larger than this is obviously designed to down battleships and ballistic missiles and belongs in the hands of the military only. Also any firearm that shoots multiple projectiles should be banned - unless said firearm has an effective range no greater than 100 yards.

*Effective range is hereby defined as the ability to push a projectile hard enough and fast enough to cause a mild stinging sensation** at 100 yards.

**If the target should suffer this mild stinging sensation, target is instructed to rub some vagisil on it.



I know that your tongue in cheek law list says that private sales should have a background check.

What if private sales had to be conducted through NICS and the local gun retailer was paid a fee (by the buyer) to take care of it.

New guns have to go through the procedure, why should private sales be exempt?

It would protect the seller if the buyer uses the gun in a crime (or it is stolen and used in a crime) as law enforcement would have the name and address of the new owner and a place to start their investigation.

If you feel this constitutes gun registration, new guns are already put into the system so why should private sales be exempted from the same scrutiny?

If the fee was low I don't see the hardship this could cause.


What's so wrong with that?


Even gun shows could have people with with FFL's to handle the transfers.

Let all hell break loose, starting NOW!



Okay guys, April fools, just kidding. Settle down.

Just trying to rattle your chains and play along with the intent of the posts.



Oh Yeah,
Before anyone else can say it.

Yes I undertand NICS is a background check on an individual.

Hope your blood pressure has returned to normal!




I personally think that anyone (non-retalier) who sells a gun is doing themselves a disservice if they don't at least keep a record of who they sold the gun to. If they want the added peace of mind of having an individual's name run through NICS they should negotiate this into the terms of the sale.

If it were mandated by the govt that all private transfers had to be run through NICS and access to NICS was fee based, then I would think that this provision would constitute an additional tax on firearms and we all know there are enough taxes imposed already.

As for my blood pressure - it would probably go down considerably if there was a law on the books that mandated a CO2 emmissions standard for all rifles. Maybe then people would quit shooting all those big smelly magnum cartridges, with all that smoke, noise, and CO2 and switch over to the much more fuel efficient (an eco-friendly) rimfires - such as the .22short (even better if they could switch to CB's) - just make sure they're loaded with steel or copper, since we don't want anything to die from lead poisoning.

A law like that would let me breathe easy and help reduce my oh so high blood pressure.


Come to think of it....wouldn't it be nice if someone would pass a law banning the use of lead in bullets?....oh wait, nevermind.

Well, I guess its time to start using A-Square's monolithic solids.


I think that shooting should be a part of the legal state primary education curricula.

I think no child should be able to enter the first grade if they don't know the 4 rules of shooting (my three year old knows them)

To graduate from high school, you should have to hit 20 out of 25 skeet, put 10 rounds in 10 inches at 100 yards (rifle of your choice) and 10 rounds in 10 inches at 10 yards (pistol of your choice), as well as demonstrate an understanding of safety and laws.

Mike M.

You have the right to own a gun. If you give up this right, that fact will be held against you in a court of law. If you cannot afford a gun, one will be provided to you by the Government. Do you understand these rights?


The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed. At All.


To be a legal gun owner, all you need is a license. To get a license, all you have to do is attend and pass the class. The class is 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, for 18 months. Prior experience, or ability to pass practical or written tests, does not get you out of attending any part of the class.


Mike -

You're not selling me on this one. I can't stand for government handouts - even one that would be as great as that. The problem is the government goes to the lowest bidder, so we'd likely be stuck with some strange 1 shot p.o.s. handgun with a history of jamming.

That and I don't understand how your law would help the environment or The Children. Don't you know that laws can't be passed unless they help the environment of The Children.

We really need to take this law passing business serious - not too long ago (6 years by legal definitions) I was one of The Children and all these laws didn't help me. I still have to go to work everyday. Could we pass some new laws (and backdate them) that will help me out of this situation?

Back on topic - we need to ban sights on guns. Without sights people won't be able to hit their targets, thus making guns safer. And since we all know that guns are designed to kill The Children, such a law would keep The Children safer.


While the great object is "that every man be armed", I would not force people to own guns.

I would however require adults who wish to remain gunless to register, undergo a background check and purchase a "no gun" license for $750.

If at a later date they provide proof of gun ownership, the $750 would be converted into an NRA Life membership.

peter jackson

I've got a great idea for a gun law. It would go something like this:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

By implying that the only arms allowed are those which would be appropriate for militia use, we can prevent tanks and nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of criminals.



Gun licenses should be regulated just like automobile driver's licenses: my license to carry in my state should be recognized as a license to carry in all fifty states.


Would it not be wonderful if we had a law that prevented criminals from buying guns That way, the only people who could buy guns are people with no intent to commit a crime and no criminal background. Perhaps if we banned all people from owning guns then maybe nobody would get hurt by guns since guns would be illegal and people don't want to break the law and the only people attempting to buy guns would be criminals and the police would lock them up before they got to you and so you wouldn't need to own a gun in the first place and then they would have time to pass laws requiring the use of periods commas and capitalization in all posts on the internet wouldn't that be wonderful


Gun control - The right to take out a criminal who is using a gun during commission of a felony.

Ken McCracken

Gun control - being skilled enough to always hit the target.

The only kind of gun control that seems reasonable to me.


Just to extend Karl's idea, we also need gun owners to practice.

I'd require the government to provide subsidies to shooting ranges, and to get the subsidies the ranges would have to show a minimum number of shooters per month. More shooters = more subsidy.


Make it a capital crime to make a movie, tv show, music video, etc. with one or more doofuses (doofi?) holding a perfectly good handgun sideways.

Old Fat Sarge

Every week we should fire into a tank for the purpose of bullet matching to those found at crimes. We could even have drive-up tanks, with prizes for the best approach and recovery of our own bullets as other crazed gunowners keep up the rate of fire.

M. Simon

I propose an IRS Audit for gun owners. If people are not paying their fair share why should they have the privilege of owning a gun?

And besides BATF is part of the Treasury Dept. It makes sense.

BTW all gun owners should be tattooed on the genitals. Then you would know who you are f****n with.


I agree - tattoos in painful places - that way gun owners will understand what kind of pain they cause others just by exercising their so-called "rights".

Maybe not tattoos - what about branding - because if you want to own a gun you are obviously dumb enough to be confused with a cow.

Only stupid people who are scared easily own guns. Smart people know the government will be there to help them in their times of need.


My dad put me in Jr. NRA 50' Indoor .22 competitions just as soon as I was old enough. I got to Sharpshooter Bar IV, I believe. Later, in high school, I was in Jr. ROTC, where 50' Indoor .22 shooting was part of the carriculum. I cleaned everybody's plow due to my previous experience.

It ought to be the law that every kid has the opportunity to learn to shoot like I did, and those who do ought to be able to carry any firearm they want... but only in places where a police officer is allowed to carry one. ;^)


I think another reasonable law would be to ban any firarms capable of holding more than 1 shot - furthermore individuals should only be allowed to possess 1 round per caliber of firearm they own. I keep hearing hunters and military types saying things like "1 shot 1 kill" - well its about time you put your money where your mouth is. Follow up shots are an unfair advantage and should be illegal. If you're in a situation where you need more than 1 shot - well you shouldn't have put yourself in that situation - call the government to bail you out.

Camo should be illegal too - and waterproof boots - unless said clothing is designed for hunters "armed with a camera" - as this is the only way to hunt in this modern era.

On a more serious note - why are we asking for subsidies and demanding the government teach our kids (your kids, since I don't have any) to shoot? Isn't that our job - not theirs.